>it will always exist.
for slaves
Discussion
To pretend you won't organize some sort of governing structure in your own household is living in fantasy land.
It's wrong to tell my kids what to do or I'll punish them? It's wrong to tell my neighbor to stay off my property or I'll violate them? So, total chaos where everyone violates everyone based on their own preconceived morals is a better system? No. Anarchy isn't a vehicle for progression. It's regressive.
I believe in private property ethic. You don't need an institution that defends (sometimes) that right but which you never signed up to, in order to defend such a right.
Firstly, you can defend it yourself, or voluntarily sign a contract with a private security contractor to help with that.
We are simply showing that even the idea of a minimal state is stupid. Force is not good, voluntary contracts are (which is redundant as contracts can only be voluntary).
I live in the reality of the last point, our police service is as, we have so many private security companies patrolling in my small town.
I am partially living the supposed anarchy (another word for a free market of choice, even when it comes to things like defense - something you should be able to choose)
So that's how you see government? You are the kid and government is your parents?
No and I didn't say that. Good try bud.
If it's not what you said maybe you meant to use different words then?
"It's wrong to tell my kids what to do or I'll punish them?"
Governance, not necessarily a state.
Voluntary authority is fine. I go to work and submit to my boss everyday. I have no problem with that as I signed a contract willingly.
Government (or let me use the word mafia/state rather) is different. I never was offered a contract. Hell, if I vote for a party and they lose but another wins I am still placed under a unilateral contract of the party who won (the one i, a supposed consumer, didn't sign up to)
Sure. I've had this conversation before and said the exact same thing. A state with a monopoly on violence is not necessary. A form of governance (not government) is for any economy of scale.
Yes, perhaps governance is a better word.
In a free market we of course would have competing regulatory groups that probably work alongside insurance companies.
Insurance company X: "You are running a restaurant sir? We will rack up your premiums unless you get certifued by these agencies"
You as the owner, either skip town and wait till you are at the end of contractual period with X or you decide, maybe his selection of healthy-and-safety accreditation companies are fine and I will go along with it.
What we have now is the inability to choose that. Not because of a natural monopoly (I.e. a company doing well because they simply have a superior product) but a violent one. We have a group of people saying "only these are the health and safety standards for restaurants".
So I agree on governance, but not a state, which is a mafia that has guns and disrespects you by imposing a contract on you that you. Never signed.