I became a libertarian in college when I took an economics class and an ethics class that both spoke of Ayn Rand. That was like 20 years ago. I still believed in government for roads, military and all that. Recently about 4 years ago the rabbit hole swallowed me. Went full fledged anarchist, in principle. Still realistic though, so if all the government did is build roads I can live with that.
War is the only thing I really focus on now though. It sickens me the idea that my kids can be sent by force to die in Syria if the government decided to have a draft again. With the way things are going I can see that happening, so I speak out for that.
I totally resonate with that. I think full on anarchy wouldn't be very pretty though, and I am not entirely sure what it would accomplish. I think we give humans too much credit in some ways. We want them to be inherently good and reason that if the government was out of the picture, everything would be better.
I definitely think war is just a profit machine and you're right, it is sickening.
I am right there with you, that’s why I say in principle I am full on anarchy, but people are people, and demand to be ruled over, and to rule. They are both good and bad at the same time, so you never know how full on anarchy would work out. It would probably eventually revert to something similar to what we have now, biggish governments, that demand a little more and then a little more, till finally the people rebel, and change their rulers.
Anarchy means "no rulers". As such it's synonymous with the popular idea of equal human rights and fully compatible with equality under law. Every real crime is an instance of some people subjugating/ruling others on a small scale. Most current governments supposedly exist to support and defend equal rights, but end up incoherently mixing large scale organized crime into those efforts and putting some above the law as it applies to others.
Since the word 'anarchy' literally means the absence of rulers and subjugation, and crime/victimization is always an act of rule, a truly "full on anarchist society" would by definition be a perfectly peaceful and crime free utopia. It's perfectly reasonable to be concerned that people aiming at that sort of ideal may fail and make things worse instead of better, but I don't see how the goal itself can be rejected. Being an anarchist just means opposing all subjugation consistently as long as any of it exists. Anything other than anarchy means rejecting equal rights and defending some particular acts of subjugation as appropriate.
Of course it's unrealistic. None of us really expect all crime and oppression to cease in the foreseeable future. That doesn't mean we should support or defend any particular instances of it or any particular perpetrators of it.