Stateless society.

I am against the existence of the government, and I label myself as an Anarcho Capitalist which is defined as a system in which services are not provided by any government or state, but rather voluntarily through the market. The ideas which I will be promoting here are largely borrowed from the likes of Ludwig von Mises, Murray rothbard, Stefan molyneux, Walter block, Lysander Spooner, Hans Herman Hoppe, and David Friedman. Anarcho-Capitalism as I define it is a system where there is no state. Instead, it is a system of private property where all services are provided voluntary through the market. My general approach to anarcho capitalism is based off of libertarianism first and foremost. Now there are two axioms to libertarianism, two sides of the same coin, and these are the non aggression principle and property rights. The non agression is basically what it sounds like: do not initiate force, do not aggress against others. The only time force is legitimate is in self defense or defense of another. It's not very controversial, because who supports murder, assault, rape or theft? The second axiom is property rights. So let's say Person X has a cap on his head, and I snatch it off. Have I committed aggression? It depends. If it was X's hat and I just grabbed it then I am at fault, but if he stole it from me yesterday and I simply was repossessing it then I am innocent. Libertarians when It comes to property usually borrow from the Lockian/Rothbardian/Hoppeian homesteading theory. In other words, you mix your labour with the land, you cut down trees and build a cabin, grow crops, domesticate a cow etc, and this is how you come to acquire property if it is unowned. And because you own the property, you can transfer titles. Purchase, barter, gambling, and charity are examples of legitimate title transfer. So by now you're probably asking just what the hell this has to to with this debate about anarcho capitalism and the state. It relates to it because there are two main characteristics that the state possesses that distinguishes it from other institutions, and that is it's ability to tax and it's ability to forcefully eliminate competition in the provision of services. It's held to a different moral standard than other people. Let's give an example: in our everyday lives, when we want to accomplish things we get together voluntarily, we raise money, we persuade, we trade, we interact in many different formats, but never with guns. Never coercively. I didn't force anybody into accepting this debate challenge, and furthermore if I had, nobody would think it morally permissible. If this is still unclear, simply replace the word "government" with mafia. Let me expand upon this further. Let's suppose that there is a man named Stuart. Stuart thinks that his town ought to have a public park. So he goes around collecting funds to pay for the endeavor. Being the greedy capitalist pig that I am, I refuse to pay when he comes to My door. In response, he takes out a baseball bat, breaks my knee and steals my wallet. What would the general reaction be? Something along the lines of "this man should be criminally prosecuted, he committed assault with a weapon and armed robbery. " , and justly so. But let's tweak this scenario a little bit. Suppose that people in my neighborhood vote for Stuart to take my money forcibly, and he does. Most people would still find this morally repugnante. Theft is theft. But let's go a little farther. Suppose now that Stuart is a member of the republican party, and he is voted into public office. What then happens when the time comes to pay my taxes, and I refuse, and men with guns clad in costumes and badges break into my house an forcibly remove me, and lock me in a cage? Stuart is now a public servant, a selfless representative of the will of the people. People chant his name, people revere him wheras a mere change in terminology and consistency would deem him a common thief, a looter for doing virtually the same thing as in the previous examples. This is explained better when German sociologist Franz Oppenheimer talks about what he refers to as the economic means vs the political means. Another characteristic which I mentioned which the state possesses is it's ability to outlaw competition with it. For example, if you and I want to start a software company. We do not have it intrinsically in our possession to ban competiting entrepreneurs. We may be the favored business because our customers prefer our product to that of our competitors thus limiting competition in that sense, but we cannot legally ban a group like Microsoft from entering the market to compete with us. By contrast, the state claims coercive monopoly on the provision of several services such as the law, law enforcement, currency, national defense, education, roads and in My country healthcare, to name a few. In these cases, competition is immensely limited, or sometimes outright banned. In My home country of Canada, private medical clinics are virtually outlawed. This presents some problems. First, there is the issue of aggression. The government monopoly on protection is analogous to outlawing competition in t-shirts or wrist watches. Force is being initiated against innocent people. Another problem, this time economically speaking that when you are funded coercively through taxation and fiat currency and competition is banned, what real incentive do you have to provide a good service? In a free market system where businessmen must compete for the money of their customers, If they fail to provide a good service for a reasonable price they will go out of business because of competition. Your pay depends on your ability to satisfy customers. By contrast, In a state run system you have no real incentive because regardless of what you do you have the guns and the power To collect taxes, and if someone tries to compete with you they will be criminally prosecuted. As an example, there is a significant problem with police violence in the united states, and surprisingly in Canada as well. If there was legitimate competition in the provision of protection services, police that were abusive would e fired or punished substantially, because in a free market your reputation is very important, and if said reputation comprised of yor employees beating up black people you would lose customers fast, as people would take there business to less violent agencies. Now a common argument against what I am saying is something along the lines of "people are stupid, people are violent, selfish creatures, people are this and that". If anything, this is an argument against the existence of the state, because are state officials not people? You can't say that people are one thing, then create another category called the state which possesses none of those for-mentioned negative characteristics. Especially not a democratic state, where all these selfish people can choose the politicians. Another objection that is often brought up is the issue of service provision. The state does X, X is important, therefore X won't get done. On its face, this makes no sense. Food and clothing are just as important as police, courts, military, healthcare and education, and yet there is no great movement to nationalize the fashion industry. Imagine that you live in North Korea, a country where agriculture is entirely government run, and clothing is also government run. You would probably find it hard to imagine how a market in food and clothing would work, after all, without the government who would tell me what to where? It's no different in this case. In the next round, I will attempt to convey how roads, police, and military could be provided voluntarily through the market, in the absence of a state. Looking forward to round two. Good luck!