Anarcho-Capitalism is the only just society

There is No Alternative: The Case for a Free Society, or, Utopia "We can walk our road together If our goals are all the same We can run alone and free If we pursue a different aim" - Rush, Hemispheres Herein lies the basis of the anarcho-capitalist philosophy: leave us the hell alone. No State nor individual has the authority to force any vision of utopia, no matter how grand, on individuals. The greatest virtue of a free society? The ability for all to create their own utopias. This is what a true utopia looks like; a society in which liberty is taken as an absolute. Robert Nozick, in Anarchy, State, and Utopia, said it best: "[A free society] allows us, individually or with whom we please, to choose our life and to realize our ends and our conception of ourselves, insofar as we can, aided by the voluntary cooperation of other individuals possessing the same dignity. How dare any state or group of individuals do more. Or less." "But," so a common argument against such a society goes, "what about the benefits of the State? What of the postal system, the universities, and the safety nets?" If the statist is particularly uninspired (are they ever not?), it is guaranteed that they will appeal to the existence of roads, the supposed be-all end-all justification for government. Of course, the statist never wonders why, if people are such short-sighted, self-serving, sociopathic, greedy, and overall despicable creatures to the point where they will not band together to create things which the statist themselves admit would benefit them, placing them in complete control of society would make them sweet and caring and altruistic and pleasant, with their only aim being to be compassionate. Even if you abstain from pointing out the obvious ridiculousness of the claims that a free market would not give rise to socially-beneficial institutions (why, exactly, can McDonald"s operate tens of thousands of restaurants, while the very thought of blacktop is supposed to paralyse all businessmen?), that those institutions would be, for some unspecified reason, not-good, and that the solution to people"s incompetence is to give them guns, statists are still trivial to deal with. Just ask them if they really want you dead - legitimately dead - and if they would be willing to pull the trigger. A simple analysis of statist positions shows how despicable they really are. Take taxation, for instance. When the State "asks" you to give up your earnings, they aren"t making a request. They"re issuing a command. You have one viable answer. If you say "no," you are convicted of a crime and "asked" to serve a sentence. If you say "no," you are interned against your will. If you then try to liberate yourself, refusing to be caged for asserting your own independence, the State shoots you. The gun is always aimed at you, even if you never see it used. The "ethically-conscious" statist implicitly or explicitly approves, and, oftentimes, whimpers that it should be loaded with a larger caliber bullet. If you believe, even faintly, in the principles which affirm that people have rights, that people own themselves, that people have sovereignty over their lives, that people are ends-in-themselves, and that violence is not a valid means of organising society, you must reject all vestiges of organisational aggression (the Mob and the State equally). Laissez-faire: the meaning of Utopia.