AAA- Ask an anarchist anything!

[Jryt]

Its because they think the state is a real thing. Which is incredibky ironic coming from the self proclaimed atheists.

As a disclaimer, I do quite like the ancap viewpoint, I find it interesting.

I don't get the idea of property though (among other things), I don't think kusok ever properly explained it to me. I don't get what makes something belong to someone in the anarchist model. Is it just your ability to defend it or have others defend it for you?

[Austanian]

Its because they think the state is a real thing. Which is incredibky ironic coming from the self proclaimed atheists.

There we have it. The state is not real so we already have anarchy. You guys win. LOL

[Stizzel]

As a disclaimer, I do quite like the ancap viewpoint, I find it interesting.

I don't get the idea of property though (among other things), I don't think kusok ever properly explained it to me. I don't get what makes something belong to someone in the anarchist model. Is it just your ability to defend it or have others defend it for you?

Property ownership is derived from the idea that your life is yours. The only thing you really own is yourself.

[Stizzel]

There we have it. The state is not real so we already have anarchy. You guys win. LOL

True. Anarchy is simply reality, there is no anarchy/state dichotomy. It's a special kind of irony that atheists have so much trouble accepting empirical reality.

As for christians, your faith is only supposed to allow for one god.

[Austanian]

True. Anarchy is simply reality, there is no anarchy/state dichotomy. It's a special kind of irony that atheists have so much trouble accepting empirical reality.

As for christians, your faith is only supposed to allow for one god.

I am an atheist. I also believe in the state. Not everything it does, but the reality that it exists. After all if it doesn't what are you fighting against...

[Polyphemus]

Are you an Anarchist or Anarcho-Capitalist?

[Nakmuay87]

ITT OP use big word but remain potato

[Stizzel]

I am an atheist. I also believe in the state. Not everything it does, but the reality that it exists. After all if it doesn't what are you fighting against...

Delusion. If it existed there'd be empirical validation for your claim. Where is it?

[Austanian]

Delusion. If it existed there'd be empirical validation for your claim. Where is it?

If I do not pay my taxes the state will send an armed man to my residence.

I learned that one from your Anarchist friends. The state is a term for the people in power. Nothing more. To pretend that there aren't people in power is ridiculous and easily verifiable.

[TheGreatKingSon]

Shoot, but first what do I mean?

I am philosophically and economically opposed to the State. The State chiefly being a group of individuals who hold a monopoly on legal violence. Economically speaking a monopoly on any good or service leads to lower quality at higher cost as the monopolist does not have to fear any outside competition. As a result I find it self evident that every service government provides can be done better by private competing interests. Even law itself can be done such a way, which is academically referred to as Polycentric Law and even has historical precedence (anarchy).

A simple premise for government is that without a big school yard bully to keep order, life would be "short and brutal" as Hobbes described. But this idea arises from a fundamental misconception about where order comes from. True order is not a top down invention by man, it is decentralized. The Nobel prize winning economist F.A. Hayek talked about "spontaneous order", how society (and any other system) orders itself absent central management. This isn't unfounded theory but something we see every day. It's why markets work and meet the demands of billions of people around the world without central figures having to micromanage each step of the process. The only places you see where this isn't working to it's full potential is where it has been replaced by overbearing top down State approaches.

There are fundamental economic incentives stopping people from slaughtering each other in the streets, not washing their hands in a restaurant, frauding others, etc. While presumably these things will always unfortunately exist (especially with government), in the long term market solutions would squeeze them out because they are detrimental to the economy as a whole. If you look at government however you see the opposite. It exasperates or even creates whole problems, and never offers good solutions. It's fundamentally incapable of doing so. All government does is via wealth redistribution, and not by market forces, but by political forces. And if you fear greed, you should only fear it when it has the power to take and use others money against their will as well as give special favors that are ultimately only possible because of the States monopoly on force.

inb4 Roads
inb4 Mad Max
inb4 public goods
inb4 Strawmen

What do we do about these dumb asses? (As in the general population and the elite.)

[Stizzel]

If I do not pay my taxes the state will send an armed man to my residence.

I learned that one from your Anarchist friends. The state is a term for the people in power. Nothing more. To pretend that there aren't people in power is ridiculous and easily verifiable.

The state wont send men, other human beings will send men.

You just defined the state as "people in power" which is a,way of categorizing people. Empirically all you have proven to exist is people.

[Spartacus777]

As a disclaimer, I do quite like the ancap viewpoint, I find it interesting.

I don't get the idea of property though (among other things), I don't think kusok ever properly explained it to me. I don't get what makes something belong to someone in the anarchist model. Is it just your ability to defend it or have others defend it for you?

Not my area of expertise although the simple premise underlying it is easy enough. Ayn Rand (not an ancap) puts it:

The right to life is the source of all rights�and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.

Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values.

There is a lot of scholarly work on the subject however. The internet is awesome, use it. Once you establish self ownership and private property however, everything else falls into place really easily.

Are you an Anarchist or Anarcho-Capitalist?

The later, although I would argue that's the only actual true form of anarchy. Of course I wouldn't object within a Stateless society if some people wanted to go and set up a communist commune for example. That's their right and concern.

If I do not pay my taxes the state will send an armed man to my residence.

I learned that one from your Anarchist friends. The state is a term for the people in power. Nothing more. To pretend that there aren't people in power is ridiculous and easily verifiable.

As I've stated multiple times in this thread, the State is just a group of individuals that acts like a really sophisticated gang. There is no difference between the two. What I think Stizzel is trying to get at is that there's no magical system that can defy the laws of economics and magically solve our problems. Already most of what goes on everyday in society, that is all of the sustainable services and goods produced, are because of markets and voluntary exchange. We are just promoting what is already working.

Also one does not debate properly by just ignoring every point made and instead zeroing in on one that is pretty much just semantics.

What do we do about these dumb asses? (As in the general population and the elite.)

Education, development of P2P and censorship resistant technologies. There's a lot of valid debate on whether to engage the political process or not and to what extent, I don't personally see it as very worthwhile. Every individual can make a big difference by articulating their beliefs to others when they can, and to do as much as they can in their private life to circumvent the State. A big example of this might be Edward Snowden exposing population wide mass surveillance. A smaller example might be just putting phosphate in your dish soap seeing as it's been outlawed by regulators but improves the soap tremendously.

Little things, and little actions, is what I think creates the most sustainable progress over time.

[Austanian]

As I've stated multiple times in this thread, the State is just a group of individuals that acts like a really sophisticated gang. There is no difference between the two. What I think Stizzel is trying to get at is that there's no magical system that can defy the laws of economics and magically solve our problems. Already most of what goes on everyday in society, that is all of the sustainable services and goods produced, are because of markets and voluntary exchange. We are just promoting what is already working.

Also one does not debate properly by just ignoring every point made and instead zeroing in on one that is pretty much just semantics.

That is exactly what a state is... It still exists though. It is easily demonstrable.

Except the enforcement of contracts portion which is essential to free market systems. Economic systems tend to degrade in turbulent times. Just curious what is your background in economics?

Why would I debate all of the meaningless chit anarchists throw out when I can focus on the things that blow up their arguments? I am not going to chase every strawman and every hypothetical thrown out.

Sophisticated gangs as you have put them exist everywhere humans ever have even before humans were humans. Hierarchy, territorial defense, resource distribution, member rights. All can be seen in our ape cousins. You propose a system that basically trades in states for mercenaries and hopes that the mercenaries don't turn on you when offered a greater sum of money. Furthermore, you pretend that unorganized mercenaries (assuming that the large ones don't arise without state support. LOL) can defend against a state organized military command that wants your resources. After all what small mercenary group can afford 5th generation fighters let alone the research. All it takes is one "sophisticated gang" to destroy your anarchy and implement their system.

[Stizzel]

That is exactly what a state is... It still exists though. It is easily demonstrable.

Yet not one demonstration was seen that day.

[Stizzel]

As a disclaimer, I do quite like the ancap viewpoint, I find it interesting.

I don't get the idea of property though (among other things), I don't think kusok ever properly explained it to me. I don't get what makes something belong to someone in the anarchist model. Is it just your ability to defend it or have others defend it for you?

Sorry, I thought I answered this. Property, more specifically ownership, is derived from the fact that your life is yours. The only thing you really own is yourself, owning property is just an extension of this fact.

Edit: This is required reading - http://anarcho-capitalist.org/wp-con...%20Liberty.pdf

[Jryt]

At the gym at the moment ill look at the link when I get home. From what was said it looks like a lockean idea of property, which isnt one I necessarily agree with, but I will look later.

[Stizzel]

At the gym at the moment ill look at the link when I get home. From what was said it looks like a lockean idea of property, which isnt one I necessarily agree with, but I will look later.

What exactly do you disagree about? The modern ancap idea is much more refined.

Thats a free ebook and its kind of long so no rush

[kusok]

Are you an Anarchist or Anarcho-Capitalist?

same thing.

[Spartacus777]

Except the enforcement of contracts portion which is essential to free market systems.

This entire thread has been dedicated to showing how services government monopolizes, such as contract enforcement, can easily be doing by many firms and better. You have yet to show why this isn't the case, your argument just keeps running around in a circle as a result. I'll give you the same challenge I gave flairon before he ran off: Explain why the economic theory of supply and demand, especially pertaining to monopolies, either is totally wrong or somehow specifically wrong in the unique case of contract enforcement and defense.

Economic systems tend to degrade in turbulent times.

Every turbulent time I can think of in history is nearly always caused by the State.

Just curious what is your background in economics?

Finance major and a lot of independent reading.

Why would I debate all of the meaningless chit anarchists throw out when I can focus on the things that blow up their arguments? I am not going to chase every strawman and every hypothetical thrown out.

Except you're not "blowing" anything up, you're running around in circles. I don't even know what hypotheticals you could possibly be referring to since it's us that constantly need to have an answer for every possible hypothetical problem someone can think of in order to defend the feasibility of a Stateless society.

Sophisticated gangs as you have put them exist everywhere humans ever have even before humans were humans. Hierarchy, territorial defense, resource distribution, member rights. All can be seen in our ape cousins. You propose a system that basically trades in states for mercenaries and hopes that the mercenaries don't turn on you when offered a greater sum of money.

I'm proposing a system where the incentives are tacked on any firm "turning on you", rather than one where we already have an all powerful one that "turns on" us everyday. I only need to allude to massive NSA spying, constant wars, oppressive and deadly laws, economies run into the ground, and overbearing regulations to prove my point. The violence you fear in a Stateless Society is purely conceptual, while the violence we see from the State is reality.

Furthermore, you pretend that unorganized mercenaries (assuming that the large ones don't arise without state support. LOL) can defend against a state organized military command that wants your resources. After all what small mercenary group can afford 5th generation fighters let alone the research. All it takes is one "sophisticated gang" to destroy your anarchy and implement their system.

A more valid argument than I think any of the other nonsense you keep going on about. The State is really good at war sure, in the sense that it can conscript, and steal tax dollars to fund all kinds of weapons and forces. Could a Stateless Society organize a defense against that kind of invasion? Would it even have to (Costa Rica hasn't had a standing army in quite some time, to no invasion)? That's the mother of all hypotheticals, which you just accused me of perpetrating, and we could go back and forth on it forever. I would argue that from the economic prosperity and efficiency that a Stateless Society profits from it could more than finance the means to repel any invasion by a foreign state. But really who knows and who cares. If that's your ultimate argument you conceded a Stateless society can function regardless.

If you however mean a heavily armed private firm assaulting everyone and trying to take everything over, I've already rebuked that point. That firm, like McDonalds in an earlier example, has two options.

1. Offer its services as a fair security contractor. Given it's hypothetical strength and size you have given me, I assume it could do a pretty good job and become a market leader. Profit.

2. Attack everyone and anyone, bearing the total cost of doing so and risking everything in the process. Without income, they'd have to fund themselves by pillaging what they can get. These two factors pretty much makes them enemies of society. If by some miracle they are successful in eliminating every other major security firm in a multifront and segmented war, they have to somehow retain control of a population that will hate their guts. Remember the State only stays in control through voluntary cooperation because most people don't think of it as a violent organization. A crazy group of violent mercs though, good luck.

Being a rational individual, which curse of action would you choose if you were CEO of that security form?

-Accuses of throwing out strawmen and hypotheticals (without naming them)
-Proceeds to use blatant hypothetical I've already addressed at least in part

[Stizzel]

same thing.

Yup

[Austanian]

This entire thread has been dedicated to showing how services government monopolizes, such as contract enforcement, can easily be doing by many firms and better. You have yet to show why this isn't the case, your argument just keeps running around in a circle as a result. I'll give you the same challenge I gave flairon before he ran off: Explain why the economic theory of supply and demand, especially pertaining to monopolies, either is totally wrong or somehow specifically wrong in the unique case of contract enforcement and defense.

Which is the point most people don't believe it can be done by private firms better. At least certain industries. As for your monopoly argument what part of it would you like me to debate? More specifically what part of Monopoly theory makes you think it they would not exist under anarchy? Exclusive ownership of resources, barriers to entry, and possibly copyrights would all still exist.

Every turbulent time I can think of in history is nearly always caused by the State.

Perhaps that is because the state has always existed in one form or another. Even tribal villages had some sort of a state system. When ever a state falls it is either taken over by another state or Warlords form which is another form of statism. What makes you think events that have happened all throughout history would not happen again in a power vacuum.

Finance major and a lot of independent reading.

I see. Well perhaps you should spend some time researching history and looking at every time a nation state fell and an Anarchy did not arise... I am more than happy to talk finance with you.

Except you're not "blowing" anything up, you're running around in circles. I don't even know what hypotheticals you could possibly be referring to since it's us that constantly need to have an answer for every possible hypothetical problem someone can think of in order to defend the feasibility of a Stateless society.

Why do I do this? Because you fail to answer it in a way that has EVER happened in history. Fuk Sizzel thinks he won the argument that states don't exist. See you already have your anarchy. Nothing left for you to do... O wait that is not the way things work. Mobs and Warlords are brutal in their enforcement of "rules" what makes you think that these same organizations wouldn't step in immediately to seize power.

I'm proposing a system where the incentives are tacked on any firm "turning on you", rather than one where we already have an all powerful one that "turns on" us everyday. I only need to allude to massive NSA spying, constant wars, oppressive and deadly laws, economies run into the ground, and overbearing regulations to prove my point. The violence you fear in a Stateless Society is purely conceptual, while the violence we see from the State is reality.

You obviously do not know what is and isn't allowed in terms of NSA spying. Do yourself a favor and read USSID 18. As for my conceptual argument of course it is conceptual. It has never existed because when ever there is a power vacuum it does not last long. Never in history has an anarchy formed. Yet when one has the potential to form the very hypotheticals I throw out stop it from happening. You think you would have more rights under a warlord than you would under a constitutional government? I am a libertarian so you would find that conceptually I agree with you on many things the state should not be involved in. Yet there are many things that centralized planning does a lot better than individual entities.

A more valid argument than I think any of the other nonsense you keep going on about. The State is really good at war sure, in the sense that it can conscript, and steal tax dollars to fund all kinds of weapons and forces. Could a Stateless Society organize a defense against that kind of invasion? Would it even have to (Costa Rica hasn't had a standing army in quite some time, to no invasion)? That's the mother of all hypotheticals, which you just accused me of perpetrating, and we could go back and forth on it forever. I would argue that from the economic prosperity and efficiency that a Stateless Society profits from it could more than finance the means to repel any invasion by a foreign state. But really who knows and who cares. If that's your ultimate argument you conceded a Stateless society can function regardless.

So you look at Costa Rica (a country protected by the US.) for an example that no defense works. Once you verify this point you will see that the rest of your points are meaningless. If you have the most powerful military protecting you yes you can skimp on military forces. However, they still have a military of sorts even if it isn't called that. The Special Intervention Unit looks very much like a military force to me. As I have stated a stateless society has never proven it can function. It becomes a state society very quickly. The form of government just changes away from democracy to War Lords.

If a country wants your resources of course you would have to defend it. Scarcity?

If you however mean a heavily armed private firm assaulting everyone and trying to take everything over, I've already rebuked that point. That firm, like McDonalds in an earlier example, has two options.

1. Offer its services as a fair security contractor. Given it's hypothetical strength and size you have given me, I assume it could do a pretty good job and become a market leader. Profit.

2. Attack everyone and anyone, bearing the total cost of doing so and risking everything in the process. Without income, they'd have to fund themselves by pillaging what they can get. These two factors pretty much makes them enemies of society. If by some miracle they are successful in eliminating every other major security firm in a multifront and segmented war, they have to somehow retain control of a population that will hate their guts. Remember the State only stays in control through voluntary cooperation because most people don't think of it as a violent organization. A crazy group of violent mercs though, good luck.

Being a rational individual, which curse of action would you choose if you were CEO of that security form?

There aren't only two options... It can be very rational to wage war. Obviously not in the way you portrayed it, but that is the way these conversations work. I own a natural monopoly (power supply) and enter into an agreement with Bk to not supply MCD with electricity.

BK supplies me with 10 million dollars. I would only get 100k from mcds power needs. What is rational?

Now MCD can either build their own plants for say 100 million dollars or capture mine for 1 million dollars and remove power from BK. What is rational?

It can be very rational to be selfish and ruthless.

-Accuses of throwing out strawmen and hypotheticals (without naming them)
-Proceeds to use blatant hypothetical I've already addressed at least in part

Can you not see this entire conversation is based on hypothetical and refusing to address points? Anarchy is nothing more than hypothetical itself. It has never existed. SO it has to be a hypothetical. If say you removed the US government and law the first thing I would do is seize a defensible position and form alliances to defend it. (Rational) If I was about to starve I would use my power to acquire food. (rational) If someone tried to stop me I would take care of the threat. (rational) If there was a resource I needed and could easily take it I would. (Rational) Furthermore, if I was the town next door I would see this happening and form my own alliances to defend against this attack. (Rational).

Can you not see that through a series of rational steps your anarchy is gone?

You addressing it does not mean you have debunked it.

[Spartacus777]

Which is the point most people don't believe it can be done by private firms better. At least certain industries.

Monopolies lead to higher costs and lower quality. This is an inescapable economic truth. The same logic applies to food supply or whatever else as it does to security. Police aren't even legally required to prevent a crime in progress or protect you, this has been established by multiple courts.

As for your monopoly argument what part of it would you like me to debate? More specifically what part of Monopoly theory makes you think it they would not exist under anarchy? Exclusive ownership of resources, barriers to entry, and possibly copyrights would all still exist.

Copyright wouldn't exist as that's an invention of the State, but that's besides the point. Earlier I stated that there has never been a monopoly to ever arise in history without the help of the State, this still stands. If you think you can give an example give it, but one does not exist. In order to enjoy a monopoly you need to guarantee that no one else can enter the market by force. Only the State with it's legal use of force can do this without it being rejected.

Perhaps that is because the state has always existed in one form or another. Even tribal villages had some sort of a state system. When ever a state falls it is either taken over by another state or Warlords form which is another form of statism. What makes you think events that have happened all throughout history would not happen again in a power vacuum.

You go on to say the same inaccurate fact multiple times as the basis of your argument. There have been examples of Stateless societies in the past and I've already linked to a more extensive article on this earlier in the thread. Stateless societies have existed and function, even functioned extremely well, in the past. Even if this wasn't the case, the argument that something shouldn't be tried because it hasn't been tried before is clearly fallacious. If you want to use the example of civil wars and fighting in groups, those are examples of States failing and collapsing, not examples of a population abandoning Statism. This video explains it better:

I see. Well perhaps you should spend some time researching history and looking at every time a nation state fell and an Anarchy did not arise... I am more than happy to talk finance with you.

Read the article you apparently missed here: http://www.notbeinggoverned.com/anar...-tried-part-i/
and the video above. There's no time limit for a response so take your time and maybe we can have a real conversation instead of retreading old ground.

Mobs and Warlords are brutal in their enforcement of "rules" what makes you think that these same organizations wouldn't step in immediately to seize power.

Much the same reason Apple despise it's immense size, wealth, and popularity can't completely take over any of the markets it competes in. Competition. It would simply make more sense for a firm to compete and provided what is seen as beneficial services than try to forcefully enslave every single individual in a society. Even a State can't do that without the voluntary submission of the vast majority of the population. That is what me and many others ague for, the recognition that all initiation of force is wrong and should all be treated as unjust. With the universal standard States could no longer exist, and no defense/security firm could ever hope to somehow conquer all of society.

You obviously do not know what is and isn't allowed in terms of NSA spying. Do yourself a favor and read USSID 18.

Do yourself a favor and read some of the leaked files from Snowden and others.

You think you would have more rights under a warlord than you would under a constitutional government? I am a libertarian so you would find that conceptually I agree with you on many things the state should not be involved in. Yet there are many things that centralized planning does a lot better than individual entities.

Nonsense, economic laws are universal. There's been a great deal of work done, Hayek and Mises springing to mind, on how centralized planning of any kind is fundamentally flawed and suboptimal to localized planning and competition. There's no magical exceptions to this rule, any distinction between industries in this regard is necessarily arbitrary and political. It's like arguing that the laws of physics on apply to buildings built by the private sector, not the public sector they can do what they want without regard to them.

So you look at Costa Rica (a country protected by the US.) for an example that no defense works. Once you verify this point you will see that the rest of your points are meaningless. If you have the most powerful military protecting you yes you can skimp on military forces. However, they still have a military of sorts even if it isn't called that. The Special Intervention Unit looks very much like a military force to me. As I have stated a stateless society has never proven it can function. It becomes a state society very quickly. The form of government just changes away from democracy to War Lords.

I've pretty much addressed all of this but the War Lords example has historically arised after the collapse of a State, not because the people have spontaneously embraced anarchy.

If a country wants your resources of course you would have to defend it. Scarcity?

Sure, thus the existence of defense/security firms. Have no point have I argued security was not needed in society.

There aren't only two options... It can be very rational to wage war.

I'll stop you right there. There are only two situations where it is *ever* rational to wage war, and these are seen in every war in history. It is only rational in order to defend oneself from aggression, or (in aggression) if you don't actually have to bankroll it yourself. States, and specifically the politicians that control them, use other peoples money to wage war. If it came at any personal cost to them the world would be a much more peaceful place and that is an essential dynamic of what I am arguing for.

I own a natural monopoly (power supply) and enter into an agreement with Bk to not supply MCD with electricity.

What? How is a power supply a monopoly of any kind? You are fully within your right to not supply MCD with power, it's your property. However you are assuming there is no other power provider of any kind to compete with you, and he BK can afford to outbid MCD of their own power when they can just get it from somewhere else.

BK supplies me with 10 million dollars. I would only get 100k from mcds power needs. What is rational?

Clearly BK is about to go bankrupt in this absurd hypothetical.

Now MCD can either build their own plants for say 100 million dollars or capture mine for 1 million dollars and remove power from BK. What is rational?

I think you're laboring under the assumption that because today the State grants monopoly privileges to public utilities in a certain area that this would still be the case in a Stateless society. There will always be competition. There will always be another plant that you can build power lines to, wind turbines, solar panels, etc. And if there is a lack of it for the demand, then supply will rise to meet it like any industry. I don't see the difficulty here.

I'll reiterate that the only time war makes sense is either in self defense or if you're not footing the bill. If you eliminate that last one from society, i.e. the State, by making all aggression wrong regardless of the "greater good" rhetoric behind it, then you will see a lot less war on every scale. States in history have been responsible for every war, I have yet to see an MC or BK duke it out over an electricity supplier. This isn't because of the magic of the State but because of how basic economic incentives are arranged.

If say you removed the US government and law the first thing I would do is seize a defensible position and form alliances to defend it. (rational)

Sure, that position being your property and the alliances security firms or what other protection arrangement you feel like making.

If I was about to starve I would use my power to acquire food. (rational)

Sure, that's why we have jobs so we can buy food.

If someone tried to stop me I would take care of the threat. (rational)

Sure, self defense is the only use of force that is justified.

If there was a resource I needed and could easily take it I would. (Rational)

They key term is "easily take". If it belongs to someone else already, good luck attempting to navigate the latticework of security firms and court systems. Even if someone did not feel like directly paying for protection, they can still petition a court and security firm after the theft. It will be in their reputational and profit driven interests to have you return the damage, + whatever damages the courts competitively decide is fair. I'm not saying this would never happen, of course I would. But as enforcement of law without the State becomes clear, and how much more effective it would be as all competition leads to, crime would fall off dramatically. Note I am not arguing that the State disappear over night, I am arguing that we as a Society gradually move towards it's abolition.

Furthermore, if I was the town next door I would see this happening and form my own alliances to defend against this attack. (Rational).

Self defense is justified sure.

Can you not see that through a series of rational steps your anarchy is gone?

I think you just demonstrated in a series of rational steps how it would sustain itself.

You addressing it does not mean you have debunked it.

I'll let others be the judge of that.

EDIT: Another good short video on the topic of how law enforcement would work in a Stateless society, the TV obviously being a silly example:



The point is, especially in the large corporate hypotheticals you are talking about, that law can be administered even more effectively and fairly than a monopoloy State can do it.

[Stizzel]

Still waiting for dat dere empirical validation for the existence of the state