It is one thing to preach anarchy as the final outcome of progress, it is quite another thing to preach anarchy as a present rule of conduct.

The distinction must be observed, for while the law is helpless against theories, it is potent against the practical application of theories.
In a little book called "Politics for Young Americans," written with most pious and orthodox intent by the late Charles Nordhoff, the discussion of government begins with the epigram,--by no means original with Nordhoff,--"Governments are necessary evils." Therein lurks the germ of anarchism,--for if evil, why should governments be necessary?
The anarchist is quick to admit the evil, but denies the necessity; and, in sooth, if government is an evil, then the sooner it is dispensed with the better.
When Huxley defines anarchy as that "state of society in which the rule of each individual by himself is the only government the legitimacy of which is recognized," and then goes on to say, "in this sense, strict anarchy may be the highest conceivable grade of perfection of social existence; for, if all men spontaneously did justice and loved mercy, it is plain that the swords might advantageously be turned into ploughshares, and that the occupation of judges and police would be gone," he lends support to the theoretical anarchist.

For if progress means the gradual elimination of government and the final supremacy of the individual, then the anarchist is simply the prophet who keeps in view and preaches the end.

If anarchy is an ideal condition, there always will be idealists who will advocate it.
But government is necessary, and just because it is necessary therefore it cannot be an evil.

Hospitals are necessary, and just because they are necessary therefore they cannot be evils.