Do people then understand the principal shortcomings of the state, or do they only see the surface of the problem? This is a very important question, because it determines the survival of a free society when the state is overthrown. It is a crucial question that anarchists (anarcho-capitalists) should address, but they do not.
Imagine that we abolish the state today. Right now. After all, it is easy: the state is obviously inefficient and the stupidity that survives only thanks to the institution called the "state" everyone sees and everyone has to pay.
But - radical immediate change for a wide group of people will bring some trouble. These difficulties were not caused by a "free society" and the re-establishment of the state (whatever we call the new institutions) will not solve the problems.
But that doesn't matter. The demise of the state is the simplest explanation for new problems, and its re-emergence will be the simplest solution for many.
What actually happened?
The "big inefficient state" convinced a significant group of people that the state was bad. The state was overthrown and anarchy, a "free society," came. However, there will still be a group of unconvinced that "but still the state is good at something." A group we are not convinced of the inefficiency of the state in its size. This group will influence the masses in the troubled future and lead them to the creation of a new state. And we are where we started.
The worse the better?
It is easy to convince someone that the state is an inefficient and useless institution, for example at a time when the state is a large institution and therefore its badness is obvious.
But how strong is this belief then? Do people then understand the fundamental shortcomings of the state, or do they see only the surface of the problem?
This is a very important question, because it determines the survival of a free society when the state is overthrown. It is a crucial question that anarchists (anarcho-capitalists) should address, but they do not. Today we are building the foundations of the future. How strong people's beliefs about the badness of the state will be today is the cornerstone of a future free society - if we decide today on the existence of the state.
The "the worse, the better" approach is so dangerous, because we can easily convince other people of the inefficiency and indefensibility of the state at a given time - and only superficially. It's hard to imagine what a stateless society actually means. It is difficult for many anarchists, let alone "the others."
That is why we need a minimum state. If you can convince others of the benefits and benefits of a "stateless, free society" when the state is minimal and seemingly successful and effective, you have won.
You have convinced them in much worse and more demanding conditions. If you convince someone of the horror of 1% redistribution, you are convinced of the horror of redistribution as such. About the badness of the state, about the badness of its existence and possible origin.
A free society will then have a much better future.