yea the analogy is bit off, but so is the original question. if we have centralized states to protect us from cartels and human traffickers, then they are doing a horrible job and should be abolished! however ..
no doubt cunning will still exist, and no doubt harmful relations will still exist - i don't think many anarchists are utopians, these days at least. if you read on, however, i'll provide some directions and thoughts on human trafficking and anarchy and how they relate to each other.
anarchism is not like state socialism or liberal democracies, in which you live in a governed society. your inability to see outside of this paradigm is most likely the cause of confusion. anarchism is about a relationship to other peoples and to your self. imho, most people are anarchists are many times throughout their lives, for example when living by the principle, with friends or family, of giving without expecting a profit or of doing what they think is right regardless of law and order, etc.
with that said, if the anarchist relationships develops, spreads further and became dominant among people over a geographic area, how would they deal with something like human trafficking?
well you'd have to ask them, really. but for the purposes of our discussion here ...
we need to look at human trafficking in it's currently existing form. i am not sure if you are concerned about this as a matter, or are simply using it as a wrench to throw into what you perceive to be 'hopeless anarchism', etc.
it's estimated that there are 27 million slaves in the world today, including prostitues being trafficked in the usa. of these, most are laborers. the incentive for this would disappear among a group of people who share the work load and are unable to profit individually from surplus. capital, if not the ruling class or capitalism, is the cause of human trafficking.
what incentive a person would have to for human trafficking if work and property are no longer private; if your needs are met through mutual aid rather than through exchange of property. but say this cunning person wants to traffick humans for sexual purposes?
of the sexual desires, we can say that capitalism causes the commodification of sexuality to reproduce desire (let's look at the 'progress' of sexuality over the least 30 years due to the development of pornography), and also the desire for domination, as in the old saying that the boss kicks the worker, the worker kicks the wife, the wife kicks the child, the child kicks the dog etc.
but let's just ignore that and say there is one psychopath who really wants to traffick humans for sexual purposes, without the profit motive, and who desires domination in a pathological way that we can only speculate might exist outside of modernity which is so highly dominated itself.
if you really care about human trafficking right now, what prevents you from going out to stop it?
my guess is that the first objection is that it's not your job. the division of labor is not present in anarchist relations. if this modus operandi became the majority, then those who would be affected by the stealing of their wives, daughters, and mothers into human trafficking could band together, gather other anti-traffickers such as yourself, and put a stop to it themselves. you write as if some human traffickers are so cunning that only a highly dedicated force could stop them, but it would behoove you to explore the topic in earnest. highly organized cartels, drug or other, are only ever possible through the state. otherwise the affected victims would rebel against them; it's because the agency for the resolution of such problems is given to the state rather than staying with the affected that the cartels can exist - take a look at any major drug or criminal group - their ability to survive is predicated on corrupt judges and legislators and police, those who are supposed to keep the peace rather than allow all of us to do so. because in the end, the highly dedicated police force relies on victims and communities for all information, etc needed take down the cartels. this is what anarchism opposes.
in your proposition, you make it sound as if the fbi etc are needed to stop human trafficking, and yet they haven't. human trafficking flourishes under the state. you tolerate human trafficking in the current form of government, but will not examine another possibility of social relations because it might tolerate what you are already tolerating?
would trafficking be possible in anarchist relations? sure, i suppose, but probably no more than it is flourishing now under dominant relations. however, i don't think that the fbi or anyone could do as good of a job of ending as the people affected.
if your daughter or sister or mother was abducted, and you could personally go after those who abducted them, and team up with others have also been affected, without worrying about paying the rent or making money for food, wouldn't you? and wouldn't you do a better job than some schill being paid to do that?
