I'm not looking for a guarantee, but there needs to be at least some attempt. Willfully ignoring the forces at work does not render you immune to them. It means you're utterly undefended from them. As it is, it feels like pretending it just won't be a problem when game theory dictates it 100% will be eventually.
Discussion
I agree with that.
But I think the same game theory also dictates there will be many forces in play, opposing, having different interest etc.
I think you underestimate how huge role in anything in today's world play state monopoly, so applying today's logic/examples is a bit tricky.
For me the much bigger question is actually how to reduce state monopoly,, otherwise this is just nice theoretical exercise.
I think you're viewing things the wrong way around in terms of origin. The state doesn't give rise to the status quo, it protects it. Such a potent mechanism of social control requires power, and wealth is power. The wealthy created the first state, not vice versa.
Ultimately, protecting your rights is about maintaining the right power balance. If any one individual amasses too much wealth, they become increasingly capable of exerting their will on others until they're able to hire enough soldiers to monopolize violence and create a state. The vast majority of people may be well intentioned, but history shows there is ALWAYS a tiny percentage that is happy to seize power if they can and trample on the concept of consent.
This is why I'm asking these questions. Agorists want everything to be consensual, and that's a great ideal, but some people don't give a damn about consent, and there needs to be some acknowledgement of that. Power dynamics erode consent, so where do you draw the line, and how do you keep people from crossing it?
Well, I basically agree with you.
I do not have the answer.
Just a comment - sure the state was created as a tool for wealthy to rule. But nowadays the situation is far more complex (I wish we would be in situation of some early state in terms of politics, where it was quite clear, who is who a doing what and why :D).
The main question for me is how to make (even small things) less centralized, less monopolized etc.
In other words at this point, where state engages in every and all aspects of my life I don`t care about philosophical, hypothetical question about future in hundred year or so (or better not that much care).
Sure it is beneficial to discuss undelaying philosophy, but I`m not the right person for it, I take more pragmatic approach I guess.