Voluntaryism is Morally, Economically, and Socially Better for Society than Statism

Once again, I was really hoping to face an argument, rather than an uneducated opinion. Your concept of authority exposes the root of your delusions, and explains your religious devotion to your extremist views. The fact that you took the time to argue my minuscule analogy, with no common sense applied, out of all of the other points I brought up to destroy your argument, actually disappoints me. Now, as per tradition in our debate, let me use your own sources against you: Focus on #5 of that definition 5. AN accepted source of information. It says, "an accepted source," not "THE accepted source." The very definition of the word offers the idea of a decentralized authority. My "System" you speak of does not do away with experts, the CDC, pipe layers, or road companies, it privatizes them. Your delusion springs forth from the idea that letting one person use his choice from an abundance of accepted sources of information, to get the populous to do what he wants, and to use violence to enforce what he believes, is the only way humanity can exist. For which, I might add, you have shown zero proof of. People will only buy products from companies who can prove the safety or quality of their product, for which a market will develop for private health inspection. By "Google," I'm sure you're referring to any form of consumer report. This would be used to ensure companies are not corrupting health organizations, by letting people say, "Hey, I found a mouse in my soup." A system of accreditation, like we have in the financial world, would rate the reliability or safety of a company, and let the consumers decide for themselves what services to use, based off of an experts opinion. Milk: If you would have read my analogy, I was using Raw Milk as the lesser part of a scale when talking about rights over others, and you have proved my point. You, yourself, are picking and choosing data in this case. I promise you, people who want raw milk are still getting it where it is available: Farms. You are pretending that just because something is not banned by the state, you will be forced to participate in it. Legalizing Raw Milk would not make companies replace your Vitamin D with milk straight from the cow, it would stop federal thugs from fining and arresting farmers making voluntary trade with willing customers. It was also in reference to your belief in having ownership over another person, which you proved in your statements. You were trying to justify, by misunderstanding or deliberately twisting the reliable source of information, the criminalization of raw milk. A subject that affects you in no way, yet you are attempting to justify using lethal force against me for wanting to participate in voluntary trade. Had you actually read your own source, it would go on to explain how to safely pasteurize your own milk; But why actually pay attention to information before forcing your views on another person with violence? You have just proved the largest hole in your argument: People cannot be trusted to be in a monopoly to decide what is best for other people. I use raw milk as an example because people usually go through a mental shut down when you talk about the legalization of drugs. When, in fact, it is identical to the raw milk argument. A person getting hopped up on something and driving in public is a violation of the NAP, and is no different than alcohol. Yet you people feel the right to tell me what I can or cannot do with my own body, in my own home, and you are willing to use the violence of the state against me for something that affects you in no way. That was the point of mentioning raw milk, to which you took for the audience hook, line, and sinker. Saying, "Ignore the prosperity, focus on the heartache. This typifies and defines most of your arguments, and is why they are so easy to discredit" is like saying, "I know every baby sitter we have ever had has raped half of our children, but rape is necessary. Without rapist babysitters, who would change the diapers?" To add, you have not only discredited nothing, everything you have posted has been an argument against the state. All of those, What If"s you worry about? Those are called choices. The nice thing about freedom is people get to make their own decisions. I'm not entirely sure why this bothers you so much. Every time you ask me "What if X?" I have 1000 different answers I can give you, if you don't like the first one, I'm happy to give you another. The whole point is, you get to decide for yourself what suits you best in a market environment. The beauty of a voluntary society is if you want to have people threaten you all the time and tell you what to do, that's your business. We don"t recommend it or anything, but really you're more than welcome to submit to someone else's authority in the absence of the State. We might talk to you about the virtues of freedom, but we're honestly not trying to force you to be free. All we're saying is you have no right to force us under the same authority. By contrast, you want to take our property, force us into wars, "educate" our children, and control our business and personal relationships. You have some really weird idea in your head that this notion of "government" makes that okay, but there is no other circumstance in which you would consider that socially acceptable. We don't believe in government, so we look at this like any other lunatic trying to do these things to us. I notice you have waited until the conclusion to put up any resistance, so that I cannot destroy your debate with your own sources for a third time, so I will try to prevent as much child's play as I can with this: My entire point is that you don't need a monopoly who initiates violence to force other people to follow what THAT individual or group decides to do. You have PROVED to us how one can misinterpret data to try and justify using violence for something as minuscule as the trade of raw milk. In the end, every "law" written by the state is enforced by the point of a gun, and after thousands of years of repeated abuses of this power, with the absolute promise of worse abuses in the future, it is literally insane to keep going down the same road. The private market has a more efficient alternative to everything the state currently provides, and is perfectly able to regulate itself. As soon as you utter the words that it is not able to regulate itself, try to think about who you have regulating the government, and please explain to me how that works without sounding like a crazy person. I'm sure you'll argue that the state is responsible for the technological advances achieved by the private market, which have improved quality of life for people in first world countries; but I assure you that any slight amount of research will show that the vast majority of these things were invented by way of private means. We can argue that one could not have been created without the other, but what is obvious is the fact that both exist now, and can be improved by the private market. Without slavery the pyramids would not have been built, so it's safe to say that slavery was necessary to build the pyramids, but now it is not. We have little use for pyramids, slaves, and masters. The next step in evolution is one of peace and freedom. Or we can just keep killing peaceful people with the state. That choice has, and always will, belong to the individual; and that power, as you say, is about to make a very radical change. Audience: I must add that up to this point my opponent has delivered little to no facts, and has only offered deluded opinions without sources. Any sources he used were turned against his own argument, and have done nothing to prove the necessity of the state, defend its failures, or prove the necessity of the initiation of force. If my opponent spends his 8,000 characters "destroying" my sources, he will still have failed to fill the gaps in his own porous religious beliefs.