Aggression which is flagitious when committed by one is not sanctified when committed by a host.

There is one element that comprises the heart of the statist, an anatomical feature they all share without exception. This element goes by many names, but the one I prefer is intolerance. The statist, at his core, is someone who refuses to tolerate ways of being that are contrary to his own preferences. His motives may be humanitarian, egalitarian, or any of the others listed, but the result is always force, always coercion, always the employment of threats and weapons to control others according to his own desires. To strike at the heart, then, we must loudly and repeatedly call out this intolerance. We must lay bare for the world to see that this person thinks so highly of themselves that they feel it's acceptable and even laudable to impose their enlightened views on others by force. Not only does this get to the crux of the issue, it also highlights the way forward. The path out of statism does not really lie in a technical understanding of the nonaggression principle, though that certainly helps. The path simply consists of humility. Humble yourself, take stock of your ignorance and moral failings, and you will find your statism shedding like skin off a snake. You don't have to understand the intricacies of a stateless society. You don't have to get a master's degree in ethics. You just need to say, "Let's live and let live. You do you, I'll do me, and as long as we leave each other alone, we're cool." Once someone is nodding along with that idea, the battle is already won. Explain what it implies concerning the morality of government, and then watch for the moment when it all suddenly clicks.

Rothbard realized that the limited-government laissez-faire position was "logically untenable" when he was unable to answer the objection raised by left-liberal friends: If people could collectively decide that government should provide police, courts, and military defense, then why couldn’t they decide that government should also operate steel mills or dams? Rothbard's epiphany led him to adopt a pure anarcho-capitalist position.

The power of government in social affairs, much like ... atomic power in the physical world, still is an untamed and unharnessed force of great danger.

Anarchism is just the way people act when they are free to do as they choose, and when they deal with others who are equally free -- and therefore aware of the responsibility to others that entails. This leads to another crucial point: that while people can be reasonable and considerate when they are dealing with equals, human nature is such that they cannot be trusted to do so when given power over others. Give someone such power, they will almost invariably abuse it in some way or another.