Without politicians, who would run the country? The only people that know about how to do so, are politicians.
Or that’s how someone thought to have countered my arguments against the state, on some BBS, some time ago.
Why would a country be the only way a group of people (society) can exist/be organized?
People are perfectly able to supply and/or acquire services, like sewage, trash disposal, housing, food supply without the state, in fact, if the state does those things, eventually, the wall will be demolised and Trabants will drive freely to the west. In countries were that has not happened (yet) starvation is de rigeur. Because aready, the state is incompetent at supplying stuff the people want/need. businesses already do that, and can and will want to continue doing that.
People have a tendency to follow lead(er)s; similar to a flock of geese, all changing direction; they follow the feathered creature at the front. Would this mean that without the state, people would just follow the lead of any random loud mouth, which would lead to anarchy? No, because without the state would already be anarchy: rulerlessness, aka statelessness. It would not lead to it. Fear that it would lead to chaos seems somewhat underwhelming. Following (strong) central leadership would be worse than chaos; Hitler (WW2, including holocaust), Lenin/Stalin (all of the USSR, including purges & Gulag), Johnson (Vietnam), Bush (Iraq, Afganistan), are examples of that; I’ll take disorder over either of those, any day, thank you.
In statelessness, there may some day arise a certain charismatically violent despot, who manages to amass a growing following. That is precisely my view on the origin of the state: violent bullies who have conquered tribes (familial societies), fear of anarchism leading to the formation of a new state seem founded, but are no reason to not abolish the current state, which is a contnuous threat to mankind. At the very least man could hope that the new state will be organized better (i.e. more in the service of the people), meaning more minarchist, instead of max-archist (totalitarian) as is the case now.
In anarchy, there is no central institution for them to take over. So a power grab would mean, they first have to create the power begore they can grab it: cumbersome and time consuming, and each individual unit of power may meet with resistance.
But I find it rather likely that the people, once accustomed to democracy, will oppose violent bullies, with the means at their disposal, which will likely include: a penalty for bad reputation: meaning that if someone is considered a threat to a society, they will find it more difficult to acquire food, shelter, etc.
Of course, some may be willing to sell those services anyway, but they will then have to face the consequences, of people bannishing them, etc. So even when businesses would be unscrupulous, the other customers need not be, revoking their custom from the businesses, in extremis making the business entrely dependent, on the one and only customer. No sensible businessman would want that, either for his oen interests, and those of his employees.
Keep in mind also, that society’s psychology has evolved over time, man has learned from the past, therefore people will still be oposed to slavery etc.