> For example, I believe the US government should offer people the cost to travel to any other country once.
Funny idea. An anarchist (left or right) would ask: why should I move? Why does the US government get priority here?
Funny idea. An anarchist (left or right) would ask: why should I move? Why does the US government get priority here?
The answer would be this argument:
1. Land on Earth is finite
2. Most people want a social contract (trading freedoms, like stealing, for benefits, like personal property)
3. Social contracts do not work unless they are geographically bound (ex: traffic laws only succeed if they are enforced consistently across a geographic area)
4. Through no fault of their own, some people (including anarchists) will end up inside of a geographic area where a social contract is consistently enforced (e.g. a state)
The anarchist must move not because is some cosmic or absolute justice at play, but rather because they are at the mercy of the people around them. If they choose to assert their rights to A) stay within that state and B) violate the social contract, the other citizens will impose consequences on them.
Between you and me, though, I think most anarchists are just people who are able to ascribe the drawbacks of social contracts without being able to ascribe the benefits. They think that less government means similar comfort with more freedom, and we know from history (and currently examples in feudal places like Afghanistan) that that is untrue.