When I have a discussion or debate with statists regarding the nature of government and political authority, a lot of them have a tendency to bring up "What if...?" scenarios after I mention that I don't believe the concept of government is legitimate. Some examples include:
What if not enough people donate to charity?
What if people don't organize well enough to defend themselves from militias, armies, gangs, etc.?
What if some people don't abide by the non-aggression principle?
It is important to understand that these questions don't address or refute the core argument that the idea of politics and government in general is illegitimate. In fact, I would say that most of the time, the people who ask these questions aren't actually looking for an answer. They are just projecting their assumptions that only government has the solutions to those questions, and not wanting to consider an alternative.
In reality, I don't need to be able to predict the future or have solutions for every problem to prove that the notion of government is illegitimate. I've already done so in several articles which I will link to below:
https://steemit.com/anarchy/@censoredrefugee/the-absurdity-of-the-consent-of-the-governed
https://steemit.com/politics/@censoredrefugee/how-i-became-a-voluntaryist
https://steemit.com/democracy/@censoredrefugee/which-world-would-you-rather-live-in
Others like Larken Rose and Michael Huemer have done a better job than me in debunking government and politics as well:
Once people understand that no one has the right to rule another, and that it is ridiculous and counterproductive to give others the power to forcibly control society, the questions related to what will happen without government will be as irrelevant as asking "Without the Tooth Fairy, who will leave money under the pillow after I lose a tooth?" There is no Tooth Fairy, just like there is no legitimate government.
