Five Reasons Austin Petersen Isn't an Anarchist

You can read his version here, but I've taken the liberty of condensing the piece into a more concise edition that cuts to the chase:

1. He's not an anarchist because he doesn't understand what rights are;
2. He's not an anarchist because he doesn't understand how wars work (hint: When there's nobody empowered to surrender on behalf of everyone, invasions become unwinnable quagmires that cost far more than any conceivable benefit);
3. He's not an anarchist because he doesn't understand that you can't enforce the non-aggression principle by violating it;
4. He's not an anarchist because he doesn't understand anything else about the non-aggression principle, either; and
5. He's not an anarchist because he thinks that a state is required to define private property objectively and with continuity, even though the next state to do so will be the first to do so.

Or, to roll all five reasons into one, he's not anarchist because he thinks that anarchy can't do all the things the state doesn't do either.