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

For such a strong opening, I really expected more from the text that followed. The majority of your argument ignored the passage that voluntaryists are actually for organization in society, and used the fact that "things have always been this way" as the foundation to why it can"t exist any other way: http://en.wikipedia.org... In the beginning, you stated why people organized. I think we can both agree on this. Our difference lies where you believe it is "necessary" to keep a 10,000 year old system where a hungry and envious human can simply be put into centralized control over all resources, rather than have to take it by force. "Society, as you know it, would simply not exist without that force." Although that is your opinion, the entire idea that violence is necessary for people to organize is what we are debating. Once a person sees that it is unnecessary and immoral, then the foundation of the state itself is exposed as mere sand. This is why there is so much effort put into brainwashing children through public education into conformity, submission, anti-creativity, and belief in authority over one"s own personal needs (having to raise your hand to use the bathroom.) If you can state a solid example of people acting like animals in the absence of the state, please post a historical source. For every one action committed by a person in "the chaos of anarchy," I will show you 200,000 examples of people killing innocent people in the name of the state. It is far easier for me to demonstrate that humanity will become extinct because of its belief in authority, rather than individuals governing themselves. At one point in time, slavery was legal. People argued "without slavery, the economy would collapse, and you and I would cease to exist" (actual anti-abolitionist argument.) Thankfully, human beings were able to decide that morality trumped "necessity," as you put it, and freed the slaves, despite whatever may be the outcome. Despite fears, the world improvised, adapted, and overcame as it naturally has throughout history. You mentioned that AnCap is being used in dangerous places and that, anarchism itself has failed. You fail to see that it is the state interfering with the market that has created a niche for this this environment to become dangerous. Most of what you are describing involves drug trafficking or Civil War, which are both direct products of the action of government. Any amount of research into the War on Drugs will show that it is the state that is making it into a dangerous environment. Without the state, no one would be using deadly force to regulate what people do with their own bodies; and, for that matter, no one would be funding entire wars to control the distribution of drugs (by this I mean wars such as Afghanistan, where my good friend is currently in charge of protecting certain farmers poppy plants and burning others.) One may think de-criminalizing drugs would have disastrous outcomes (drug lords ruling certain geographic areas,) but such an experiment has been successful in Portugal. Drug cartels need government to exist, for the failed war on drugs is proof that an organization cannot control something that grows naturally and can be made in a garage. Without a cornered market, created by the actions of government, drug cartels in these dangerous regions will lose their power, and unless they become valuable to the market in some other way, they will collapse. http://www.spiegel.de... I will also add that in regards to a "Free Market" and Anarchism, you have overlooked successful examples of peaceful coexistence amongst humans. History has seen forms of society as existing peacefully under polycentric law, without a violent statutory monopoly on force over peaceful people. Harappa existed successfully without government for 700 years, until a state was formed that regulated how certain resources could be accessed. The same peaceful coexistence between humans can also be found in early Jericho and neighboring Catalhoyuk, where archaeologists find no traces of government or hierarchy. http://en.wikipedia.org... In 1681, William Penn decided to create an environment that would attract fellow Quakers into his community. The citizens of what is now Pennsylvania formed a self-governing colony, Penn eventually left the colony after multiple attempts to tax them. The council of elected officials either ignored all requests to extort their own people, or the people themselves refused to cooperate. Penn noted his difficulty trying to control a populous that did not believe in authority by saying, "The great fault is, that those who are there lose their authority one way or another in the spirits of the people and then they can do little with their outward powers." This example alone shows that authority only exists by the consent of the governed, and violence is not necessary for people to coexist. http://mises.org... Your mention of Asia was probably from, once again, a publicly educated standpoint. The corruption of the state has created a market for drugs. Without this state-created channel for drug cartels to exist, they have no market to operate within. What you again overlook is that Southern and South Eastern Asia is a successful example of modern day Anarchism. For the past 2,000 years, a large section of inland mountainous Asia, coined "Zomia" by a Yale Professor, has existed outside of the reach of empires and states. The following article by The Boston Globe goes into detail about how the society purposefully remains outside the reach of the state, and exists in non-hierarchical societies. http://www.boston.com... The Banana Republic reference wouldn"t have even survived a public educational standard of research, for all I had to do was actually take a reference from your own source to destroy your theory, "The national legislature is, in effect, for sale, influential government employees illegitimately exploit their posts for personal gain." Your own example is, naturally, an example against the state. Centralized control over people or a corner of the market attracts corrupt people; the same ones you claim the state exists to defend against. In Anarcho-Capitalism, a monopoly cannot form because a government does not exist to regulate who can start a business, how a business can be run, provide bailouts for a failing corporation, and it is not able to limit the amount a company can be held liable for a massive failure. When one person "corners a market," other businesses will jump up to offer the same or similar product for a cheaper price. When a large company collapses, new economic life will spring forth. This is the only way a market can properly function, for regulation is but debris in the cogs of what is otherwise a well-oiled machine. Although one would have to stretch to claim that a free market has been the prelude to any major travesty in human history. F.A. Hayek's The Road to Serfdom describes in detail that not only is a free market more efficient, but that all major genocidal actions of the state were preluded by government control of the marketplace (writing his book in 1936.) So, if you can site for me an example of a free market, unfettered by the government that lead to mass genocide, please post a source like this: http://en.wikipedia.org... I will end my criticism with a quote before I move to questions. "Liberty is not a pill that makes men angels. Through the decentralization of power, we can limit the extent to which evil can be expressed." 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? 2:At what point does an individual have ownership over himself? 3:Does might equal right