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

Clarification: Waterfalls are neither moral or immoral, they are necessary, along with gravity, breathing, and living. Saying something involving the decisions making being in the hands of people or a small ruling class as "necessary" rather than a moral argument, is incredibly closed minded. There are other options, such as polycentric law, that can be properly improperly handled, the same as a state can be more or less comfortable for it's followers. Now, excuse me while I once again use your own sources against you: The Federal Republic of Somalia- Funny you mention that I shouldn't use a "dramatic" example like the Nationalist Socialist Party's reign over Europe, yet you use an extremely uneducated example like Somalia. For the sake of everyone reading our debate, please start reading your own sources before posting them. Somalia DOES have Xeer, which a polycentric system that has worked for them for thousands of years... until small groups entered the scene to try and force their own centralized form of Statism, whether through religion or civil law, and started a conflict with each other. These warlords, who gained power after the british rule during WWII, have gained control of the entire country and cut off aid to people in need. This is, as you titled it, a failed STATE, where someone is in a centralized position to rule over other people. Toaster- I was going to use an even simpler example of making a pencil. Trade has existed between humans since our existence, and markets were only recently "regulated." In my embassy there is no one that deals with international trade. International business between two cultures is not handled by government, it is handled by "International Business" companies, private companies. Government only puts it's hand in in the form of taxes and tariffs. Now I want to clear up my side a little more as far as economics. Not only does everything the government touches breaks, but there is nothing the government can do more efficiently than can be done by private means. Every time a country has moved towards socialism, it has increased the wage gap, and every a business has been taken over by the state, it proceeds to collapse. http://www.dailyfinance.com... This excites me: "Unfettered markets are good at a few things, poor and even horrible at others. An unfettered market will: a. Keep the rich in power b. Reward cheats, scammers, and assist any knowledge differential to cause suffering c. Ignore or avoid basic human rights d. Retard progress e. Eventually fall to a more structured approach. Structure denotes reliability, reliability builds resources. f. Develop what is left of society into money driven despotism, like Somalia." Your argument is completely conjectural, while I can prove with sources that every state in history has, and does, EXACTLY what you claim. Please, for my entertainment, read the following statement: The State exists to: a. Keep the rich in power: http://www.progress.org... b. Reward cheats/scammers: http://voices.yahoo.com... c. Ignore basic human rights: http://en.wikipedia.org... d. Retard progress: http://www.youtube.com... e. Eventually fall to a more structured approach: http://www.forbes.com... f. Develop what is left of society into money driven despotism: http://dictionary.reference.com... As far as the "authority" I mentioned, I did not mean "Credible source of knowledge" part of the definition, I meant person who has ownership over you. We both know that a human being can go to whatever "crackpot" knowledge source they want, the problem is Statism allows that same person to be in a position of power and use their crackpot ideas to oppress and rule over the masses. *insert obligatory Hitler citation.* Although it is not limited to Hitler, it has happened in every single government to ever rule in the existence of statism, and that is a fact. My question was, at what point can I say, "That law is immoral, and I have no moral obligation to follow it." This could be as simple as me selling raw milk to my neighbor, or as "extreme" as kicking down doors (http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com...), shooting people minding their own business (http://www.examiner.com...), and throwing people into Rape Cages (http://www.bjs.gov....) I'm not a fan of giving such things sugar coated titles in order to make it seem more civilized, and if you consider that an "extreme" example you should be upset that it happens rather than that I am calling it what it is. So to answer my own question per your request: People have a right to do whatever they desire as long as it does not infringe on the safety or liberty of another person. I do not have the right to tell you how to live your life, or make you pay for things that interest me. Therefore, I do not have the moral right to use the state to do that, and you have no obligation to tolerate it. As far as "Might =Right," You do not have to explain to the audience that the bigger animal gets his way in the animal kingdom, and that a group of fanatical people can gain power by force. You agree that the definition of might is changing, and my former example of the Quaker experiment in Pennsylvania is proof that one cannot control a mass of people who do not believe in authority. When you have that mindset in a group of people, it is impossible to control them in any other way than making them want to participate. People will want protection, so the market will provide it. You can elect a private security company to have a monopoly on law and violence, and if you don't like them, all you have to do is convince just over half the population that they need to change the company ever four years or so, but you still have to live under their rule for the rest of their contract... Oh, wait, my bad, that's insane. What I MEANT to say was you can simply fire a company and hire another to protect you efficiently from fraud, crime, and scammers, rather than creating a centralized position of power for fraudulent criminal scammers to control people. My argument can be summarized as "People have the natural human right to be free and do as they please without the initiation of force, and everything the State does can be provided more efficiently by private means." Your argument is: "People cannot be trusted with liberty, so we have to trust these same people with power." Do you see where someone could see the problem with that logic? As far as charity, Americans give an average of $300 Billion in charity every year, much of which is used to fill the social and economic potholes caused by the state. (http://www.nptrust.org...) This was even true in more troubling economic times, when Grover Cleveland denied a bill to help farmers, and told them to resort to charity, the farmers end up receiving more than they asked for (http://mises.org...) People have always been charitable, and letting them keep 30% of their pay will only increase this. Stating Voluntaryism is in use today meets the definition of an ignorant remark. Nothing about anything you have said involves voluntary trade between two parties, and everything you have explained has been the cause of the state. By claiming Voluntaryism is immoral, you are agreeing this is an argument about morality, and I request you explain how Voluntaryism is less moral than the state. I deserve extra points for typing this out in a blackberry on my tropical island vacation =). I also have no spellcheck, so please forgive my grammatical errors.