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

If you had limited your topic to pre-industrial societies, or island nations, you might have had a chance. But since your opening argument "Voluntaryism is morally better for society" must refer to today's society, the global society which you and I gather the benefits of every day, your argument is doomed 6 words in. First I'll follow the spirit of your discussion regarding Voluntaryism, then I'll deal with Anarchism then the side note of Anarco-Capitalism. Since you define the Con position as being "Statist" I also need to support my "burden of proof". The development of States by virtually all human societies on earth (as well as many animal societies) is a necessary logic path that comes from the need to attend to the scarcity of resources, talent, and time that occur in all of nature. In early societies, for example, an uncrossable section of river often defined a border. It also provided sustenance in the form of water and food in the form of plants nearby as well as animals coming to drink. As a result, if you look at a globe today, you will likely notice that virtually all confluences of two or more rivers have a city built next to them. This makes for a natural defence against predators of both the animal and human kind. Although the need for defence from animal predators is too obvious to debate here, the development of a "state" came from the need to protect your precious resources from tribes of other humans. In early societies, without knowledge of what other humans might exist, you might likely treat any human being not from your own tribe as an enemy. If you were in the possession of food, or other resources that an adversary tribe wanted, hunger or just mere envy might force them to become your enemy, just by necessity of their own survival. We may live in a complex global village now, but these drivers still have an effect on our day to day living. Hungry, envious humans want our stuff that we spent resources to build up. As a result of that need of defence, the need for defenders naturally follows. Since survivors of earlier onslaughts had a greater likelihood of surviving future conflicts, simply by having the experience developed in battle. These experienced veterans would tend to become in charge of defence of a chosen area, and likely had a lot of say in what went on in a day to day sense, since some activities might have dramatic consequences regarding defence. I.E. if everyone went fishing at the same time every day, since that was when the fish were biting, the city/village/state might be left defenseless for regular periods. If there were adversaries present, they would most certainly take advantage of easy targets. So those veterans became chieftains or whatever they called them, and those people defined the borders that they felt could be secure, and in those early days especially, if you chose not to listen to the chieftain, you did so at your own peril. Yes, at risk of death. This is because the seasoned veteran knows that if people choose not to follow him, all could be lost, not just the individual, but the entire city/village/state. In a broad sense, this is the argument for all of today's "states" from super powers right down to your local city council deciding on what the fine should be for not picking up your dogs poop. Today's chieftains/leaders are chosen by an agreed set of means by an individual society. It could be by vote, by violence, or by divine guidance. Voluntaryism, by your definition, includes an individuals ability to refuse the wishes of whatever leader serves your society. Since all leaders are aware that this ability, if exercised, could have the unintended consequence of all being lost, this is why, as you say, leadership is "enforced at the point of a gun." Society, as you know it, would simply not exist without that force and frankly, you wouldn't exist either because we might have gone the way of the Neanderthals (extinct). Where is your morality if you don't exist?---topic for another debate?!?!?!? Anarchism has tones of Voluntaryism, including the inborn right to refuse the wishes of a leader/government. Although there have been attempts at it, and some types of states have allowed/tolerated it, in general it has been put down due to the supposition that if you are not with us, you are against us, and therefore an enemy/adversary to be dealt with. Anarco-Capitalism is currently in use in some of the more dangerous areas in Africa, Asia, and South America. Although you put your faith in the market, the unfettered market has the consequence of disenfranchising anyone that is not associated with whatever the largest player in the market wants. Without the establishment of a body that looks out for the general health and well being of the populace, raw greed has the tendency to be the driving force in an area. Look deeper into the concept of a *"Banana Republic" (not the store) and you will find atrocities that will make you shiver, Anarco-Capitalism at its best. In conclusion, the state is necessary, not moral or immoral. The morality argument can be run against specific regimes, or perhaps certain time periods in history, but cannot stand up as a discussion topic. Voluntaryism, since it requires the right to refuse the wishes of whatever leadership you operate under, unfortunately carries with it the burden of "if you are not with us, you are against us" and therefore puts those who promote it at peril from the leadership. * http://en.wikipedia.org...