Whoah whoah whoah.

> Not everyone who disagrees with you is an "ignorant" tool

I never said you were an ignorant tool, I said a statement you made was evidence that you were ignorant of a single fact. It was.

> of the "dominant paradigm"

You are debating in favor of the current dominant paradigm, I don't think you're an "ignorant tool" of it, but the fact that you're in favor of it despite your objections to some of the symptoms of it seems to be completely true? If that's not the case by all means enlighten me.

> and "incapable of research".

I didn't say you were incapable of research, I said you clearly had not researched the answers to the questions you raised, and simply jumped to the conclusion that they must not exist. Then I recommended that you perhaps shouldn't do that.

> If you believe your political opinions to be that infallible, you're extremely niave.

The state of your position, regardless of how weak or strong that is, has no influence on the fallibility of my position. All I've ever claimed is that I am certain that political authority needs to be destroyed, it is a completely corrupt concept and utterly beyond redemption. (See Michael Huemer; The Problem with Political Authority)

Note in particular that this is not a positive claim, it is a negative claim. In much the same way as atheists don't accept the proposition that god exists due to lack of evidence for the proposition, I do not accept the proposition the political authority is valid, also due to lack of evidence for the proposition. It can be no more "fallible or infallible" than any other negative claim, it doesn't seek to prove anything, it just rejects the attempts at proof for something else. Similarly, this is not a "political position" any more than atheism is a "religious position".

As for what comes after political authority is dispensed with I have no belief at all in the infallibility of. From what I have seen, anarchocapitalist systems seem like the best candidate for a post political system. I hold no illusions of it being "infallible". If it really was the absolute most perfect system for social organisation in the entire universe going forward, that would be extremely surprising.

> My original point in this thread is that it is impossible to have a political system where someone doesn't force someone else to do something.

To the extent you're right, that is one of the reasons why we should not have political systems, and reliance on political authority is invalid.

> None of these historical examples of polycentric law disprove that claim, and in none of these examples did the least powerful members of society have the right to choose their legal system.

On the contrary, that is entirely the point of polycentric law, anarchocapitalist systems would be the first example of individuals within the system being able to freely choose between arbitration and security services, that doesn't alter the fundamental structure of a polycentric legal system, it just adds competitive incentive to the entities therein to be attractive to potential subscribers.

> These are all basically just examples of decentralized governance over a large set of clans/ethnic groups.

Which are effective examples of the concept in history, and adding the ability for participants to freely choose amongst providers in a competitive marketplace is not a long stretch.

> The Roman Empire example is particularly flawed as a piece of evidence toward the question of whether a political system without force is possible.

The citation is for the concept of polycentric law, not the complete absence of political authority (read: force).