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

With the world of information a click away, ignorance is a choice. So if you have an idea you believe to be true, it should survive you putting it aside and questioning it top, bottom, left, and right with the scientific method. If your belief or assumption is true, it will still stand. If you cover your ears and say, "It"s not right or wrong, it"s necessary," and you have evidence showing you it is not, you are choosing to live a lie. Not only can a free market provide a more efficient means to anything the government does, without violence, there is scientific evidence, the Stanford Prison Experiment, proving that people placed in a centralized position of authority naturally become corrupted. http://en.wikipedia.org... In addition to that study, the Milgram Experiments show that people, who know very well what is right and wrong, will listen to an authority figure to maim and/or kill another person if told to do so, even against their own will. http://en.wikipedia.org... As far as a state being necessary, the Spanish revolution in 1936 resulted in different forms of Anarcho-Communism forming and creating a substantially more economically productive society until being flushed out by the violence of the state. Although this was not Voluntaryism, it was a society peacefully existing without government, and differing factions uniting to try to defeat their common enemy, statism. http://en.wikipedia.org... You are advocating a system where any human being, whom you say is not responsible enough to be trusted with liberty, can be in a monopolistic centralized position that can control masses of people who are indoctrinated to follow him unquestionably, and you are deeming it necessary. You are quite literally saying, "People cannot provide private means to protect themselves from thieves, kidnappers, and murderers; so we need to have a monopoly of people, that has all of the power, to steal from people and jail or kill anyone who resists, in order to "protect" them." If you can explain the difference between that and a mafia, without sounding like an insane person, I will be impressed. One thing you and I both understand is that there are bad people out there who want to hurt us and take what we have. The fact that you want to keep a system where only these corrupted people are in charge, shows how twisted and deluded your view of reality truly is. There is scientific evidence, supported by historical events that indicate how dangerous believing in authority truly is. In addition, there is evidence that a market becomes more productive with less regulation (http://www4.ncsu.edu...). It's easy to point at a particular regime and say, "Well that"s the bad guy, those are bad things, lets go do something about them." But the problem we have is not with those bad guys, the bad guys will always be there. The problem exists with the power these bad people are able to get by manipulating people into believing they have control over their lives. If you remove the victim factor, if you fix the perception of the victim, the control freaks have no power. Hitler would have just been an angry little man with a silly mustache if those millions of people would have recognized that they own themselves and do not have to follow the orders of a man because he has a certain title, costume, hat, or sits in a fancy chair. Before you try to use the argument that society will collapse without government, I want to emphasize that voluntaryism does not advocate overthrowing the current system and forcing people, dependent upon it, to immediately live without the state. True anarchists believe in building a better model by educating people and informing them that they own themselves and through time people will resort to living by morality rather than by some twisted, indoctrinated delusion about what is "necessary." It starts small with the Free State Project (http://en.wikipedia.org...), and will eventually grow to people questioning police, questioning politicians, and protesting paying taxes for things that are against their moral integrity. Some communities are already resorting to private means to replace their government (http://www.kgw.com...) and are finding it cheaper than if the government played the role of the middle man. This is all it takes for the idea to spark, and eventually people will see that government is not only unnecessary, but also immoral. It is one thing to go to a slave owner and tell him slavery is immoral and everyone should be free, but it is much more efficient to tell the slaves that they are sovereign human beings, own themselves, and are only slaves by their own choice. Slavery was legal, and many thought of it as a necessity. In his autobiography, Frederick Douglass wrote about how most slaves thought they were meant to be slaves, so much as to accuse an escaped slave of being a thief for stealing himself from his master. Harriet Tubman claimed she could have saved thousands more than she did if only they knew that they owned themselves. Eventually society evolved, and now we look back at those times as extremely immoral and unecessary. My belief is that people can peacefully coexist by voluntary and private means, without the need for an external arbitrary governing figure to force the beliefs of others upon them with violence. This is the next step in human social evolution, and eventually my decendants will look back at statism in the same manner we look at slavery; wondering why it ever happened, and what made people think they could rule over other people. So believe it or not, you are the ultimate authority in your life. I feel I spend most of my debates telling people, "You should be free," to which they reply, "No, I shouldn't." I do not expect to see the world convert to Voluntaryism in my lifetime, but I am willing to plant a tree and not live to rest in it's shade, in the hopes my grandchildren will.