If absolute power corrupts, is voting someone into such a position futile? We might not think that heads of states are running things as it were, but the point is, the power concentrated within the edifices of the establishment must corrupt by default. What does a coup wish to achieve? The easiest and most cost effective way to co-opt the military, the police, the justice system and the means of taxation (and then the media and so on). What if there is no centre from which to dictate to all of these arms of government? What if these services are made up of multiple autonomous agencies loyal only to themselves and their voluntary patrons? Anarchism proposes to smash the state altogether. One of the many arguments for this is that it removes the capacity for state sponsored war. How do you wage a full-scale and unpopular war without taxes? The great thing about the power of taxation is that it removes the costs and risks of military action which are always huge, because they are borne by the tax payer rather than the war monger. Imagine if a private company said 'we want to go to war, we're going to use your money to do it, whether you like it or not, and we might call upon you to fight in it, again whether you like it or not'. If they instead had to say, 'we're going to use our own money, and odds are we're going to lose billions'... it's not so sweet a deal. Do you think the Anarchist argument for it being the end, or at least the significant reduction of war holds weight?