Voluntaryism

I will refrain from creating more questions in my final response but I will address your answers and provide a conclusion. 1. You claim that monopolies spring up only because of government intervention. That 9/10 of them are because of restrictions made by government. This explanation does nothing to explain The International Harvester and American Tobacco Monopolies in the early 1900's. Harvester controlled all agricultural equipment production in America when it was a very agrarian nation, by doing so it could set its prices. Similarly American tobacco, by controlling all tobacco production could set their prices far too high, and also illegally claim their cigarettes could cure any ill. These monopolies, and many others like them, were not broken up because people boycotted them. If people did not buy from them they would have no alternative, farmers would not have farm equipment and tobacco smokers would not have tobacco full stop. There was no alternative until the government began enforcing the Sherman Antitrust act of 1890. If there is no government to restrict trade doesn't necessarily mean trade will be more free to move. Oceanic trade is possible only because of the long time patrolling of the seas by navies. Look at any point in history, including today, and you will see that piracy has always been a problem. With our modern technology and powerful navies today we still lose between 6 and 16 billion a year in trade. Now you are suggesting we dissolve all such navies and trust that people will not pirate. If people under the threat of death and imprisonment currently still pirate it does not follow that by removing such threats they will cease from doing so. Without a doubt heavy tolls and guarded territories would spring up in the oceans as well as outright piracy that would heavily restrict oceanic trade. This heavy restriction on trade would cause countries to become much more isolationist which only further supports a monopolization of different aspects of the market. Finally you say that the competition is maddening. Your logic does not follow here, if a business has a better product they will do well. Better than the others in their field, they will expand, by expanding they will generate enough revenue to capture a large part of the market. At this larger vantage point in the market they will be able to easily crush competition by price gouging in the regions that their competition exists and float these losses by raising prices in regions where there is none. At a certain point the business will become large enough to simply purchase any competitors. If you do not believe me look at how our current market works. What I just described to you is exactly the model Walmart follows and that is in our own restrictive market. Your argument does not follow that businesses would not continue or even escalate their tactics in a market without restrictions. Your second argument about roads has not addressed my issues I have brought up with roads. Not only that roads are extremely complex pieces of engineering but that exorbitant tolls could easily exist. I am not arguing that a state needs to exist for roads, I have simply asked how the roads' upkeep would be managed. Wherever centers of wealth are roads would be fine, however in rural areas, ghettos even simply low income areas roads would suffer because those people can not afford to keep their roads well maintained. By having poorly maintained roads you would see disparity between the classes increase and the roads in certain areas would not be maintained. Also there would be no way of deciding how the roads would be built, if everyone helps and everyone contributes then everyone has a say in how the road is built. Is it an overpass? Is it a 6 lane, 4 lane, 2 lane? Is there a light? What speed is driven on the roads? What side of the road do you drive on? All of these are decisive issues that if a single person doesn't consent then the road cannot be built as according to this system no actions can be taken without consent. The decision could be 99% to 1% and the road would be unable to be built as building it would be against the 1% consent. Your answer to my third question has not addressed my issues with bitcoins. You have not provided the safe guards to support and defend the currency you have nominated for use. You have not provided an answer to the issue of people's access to an electronic based currency. If you do not wish to debate this portion of your argument I accept your concession. Your response to my fourth answer is that people do do those things in our current system. Your response that people are decent is ultimately flawed. If that is true than there would be no prisons and there would be no prisoners. You have ultimately shown your own naivete in this answer. If people are decent why were 506 people killed in chicago last year, even though there is a law against it? If people are decent why is fraud and identity theft at an all time high when there is a law against it? Your response is troubling as it leads me to believe you don't think war has ever happened. Your response to my fifth question is, and I apologize if this comes across as rude, laughable. The line you quoted from Isoroku Yamamoto has been debunked and was falsely attributed to him. It's funny that you use a quote about a nation of people with a government defending their country and government to defend a government-less society. People will defend themselves true, but will they travel hundreds of miles to defend people they have no connection to? Will they defend their property? If an army did invade such a society where would the call to arms come from? The army could go from city to city and take it at their leisure. While you are correct those people could defend themselves, there is nothing stopping the army from simply besieging the city and waiting until their food or water runs out and taking the weapons of the populace. There would be no breaking the siege as there would be no army to rescue them, untrained individuals that conglomerate into a massive army have repeatedly been shown to be crushed against well disciplined troops. Look at any battle in history and you will see that numbers have far less to do with victory in battle than discipline in troops. To finalize my argument I must say that I could not endorse such a system as the many flaws have been made apparent in this discussion. I do not believe it is the failure of the maintenance of roads or a warlord that would bring down a system simply human nature. There has never been a time in which chaos and anarchy has not produced some form of governing body. Tribes, clans, federations, monarchies, dictatorships, communist regimes, democracies, fascism, republics, oligarchies all have resulted from the chaotic system you have described, humans time and again have shown that given such a vacuum they will gladly fill it with whatever governing body that is willing to fill it. Thank you for the debate, I enjoyed myself very much, if you wish me to provide sources for anything I have said in this argument I will be glad to provide them in the comments as I have run out of characters.