Dr. Michael Huemer is certainly a brilliant philosopher. But the problem with his idea of anarcho-capitalism that occurs to me is the Federalist Papers, paper number 6.  [Danny Frederick discusses one other possible critique. That is; he brings the idea of Berkeley that the legitimacy of government is because of the consequences of not having one. But I can already predict that Dr. Huemer would not be convinced by that argument. He just thinks governments are just awful.] However the arguments of the Federalist papers I think do answer his points. Not that any government is OK. The Federalist Papers are arguing for a certain kind of government. [The authors of the Federalist Papers might very well agree with Dr. Huemer about most governments except for the one they were advocating. That is a Republic based on the English model.

So Anarchy or Communism would certainly fall under the critique of Huemer on government, but a lot depends on the type of people and situation. He says financial interests would cause different groups to not make war on each other but that is only refuted in Federalist Papers 6 and 7.