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

I think we are talking past each other to some extent, so I will try to put some clarity to both our positions in as short a form as I can manage. My side: 1. Statism is necessary and neither moral nor immoral. 2. In order to keep this complex system from descending into chaos, we need to have reliable social/governmental/economical structures in order for businesses to exist. 3. Voluntaryism is one of the less reliable choices to be able to support today's global enterprises and standard of living, far below the need. Your side: 1. You believe that our current system/s of governance cost lives and that switching to a system of Voluntaryism will limit the size of such losses, and that our standard of living would improve for everyone under a Voluntary style of governance. 2. You also believe that atrocities are a natural expectation of Statism, and that almost anything would be better. 3. You are trying to make the case that Statism is part of the 10,000 year old past and that Voluntaryism will be an obvious successor to the current system. Hopefully I was fair with that. I wanted to keep to the subject at hand rather than overly dramatic phrases like "rape cage" and kicking peoples doors down. I'm sure Hitler will be in your next diatribe. You had asked for any current variations of Anarco-Capitalism and I thought of one; Somalia. It is essentially a failed state, so that meets your criteria of no governance, and the pirates you hear about on mainstream television are essentially Anarco-Capitalists. In this case, you are right, their atrocities are limited only to those they come across. That is because no one will do business in Somalia. They cannot rely on anything from that country, no legal recourse is enforceable. Life there is a dream though, with occasional electrical service, and if you are hungry, you can go to your local warlord and prostrate yourself at his feet. http://www.businessinsider.com... When you say that you can counter my death rate, are you counting infant mortality? Moving on, I'd like to address the reason why I feel I feel that relying on peoples ability/desire to volunteer (even for pay) cannot sustain a viable structure in today's world. 1. Complexity--Here is an indication of how difficult it is to build a toaster in today's society: https://www.ted.com... . Although we can imagine how easy things would be to achieve complex things, the reality is that we need to be able to work with diverse societies, and in order to work with them, we need global enterprises. Global enterprises only work with rules based ideologies, and that requires governments. 2. 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. To answer your questions in round 2 "1:If necessity is more important than morality, how does one regulate when their external authority knows better than them about what is necessary and what is not?" Great question, and the answer lies in an individuals ability to learn information about whatever subject is at hand. If you are a mechanic in real life for example, and you fear the fact that fluoride has been added to your water, how do you react? Do use your time to learn what experts who have spent decades researching. Do you develop access to the real databases and test practices that have essentially proved it not only to be safe but also beneficial to the populace? Or do you Google it and listen to the crackpots with pseudoscience, slanted journalism, and conjecture? My answer: Assume nothing, find reliable sources of information. Use science as your best guide. Don't go crazy. "2:At what point does an individual have ownership over himself?" There is a line of thought that we all exist at the whim of the government. My feelings are: You are responsible to yourself, and to others, most especially those who are directly affected by you. The rest is in the realm of philosophy and not able to be kept within this debate. "3:Does might equal right" For nearly 300 million years dinosaurs ruled the Earth under that premise quite successfully. For most of human history, that was also true, but beginning with the Magna Carta, and the printing press, things are changing. Might still equals right, but the definition of might is changing. The definition of might now includes scientifically verifiable results, which may change everything. Brute force is now a small part of the definition. I'd like you to answer part of your own question number 1 "1:How does one regulate when their external authority knows better than them about what is necessary and what is not?" To conclude this round, I would like to again emphasize that voluntaryism is in existence today, and is horrible. It is the opposite of everything you state in the name of the debate. It is morally wrong, economically deterrent, and socially abhorrent. Statism is a solution, although flawed, to those societal ills. I would also like to recognize that I misspelled defense several times in the prior round. I must not like fences.