I don't know why you're so miserable and angry 😂😂😂
Chill out a little bit will you?
The side of governments is not a very good side to be on man. I don't know what's gotten into you or what propaganda you've consumed.
I live in a country that used statistics to plan and heavily intervene into the economy for 44 years from 1947-1991. Then the government liberalised in 1991 imperfectly based on ideas from economic schools that rely on statistics and models like you do.
You cannot begin to comprehend what govt intervention does to society because the laws that you have in your country is built based on the ideas, ethics and morals I am repeating like a broken record.
Read all my replies to your posts. I have asked you questions you have not responded to. Maybe your client isn't showing those notifications so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
But I'll refute your claims anyway:
The argument that governments are necessary for peace, order, and justice is deeply flawed.
History shows that states are responsible for the greatest violations of human rights, including war, genocide, taxation, and mass surveillance. Furthermore, voluntary societies and private law systems have existed and functioned without a centralized state.
1. The claim that weak governments cause violence ignores the fact that governments have been the most violent entities in history:
20th Century Wars & Genocides (Government-led):
World War I: ~15 million deaths
World War II: ~70–85 million deaths
Mao’s Great Leap Forward: ~30–45 million deaths
Stalin’s Purges and Famines: ~20 million deaths
Pol Pot’s Cambodia: ~2 million deaths
Rwandan Genocide: ~800,000 deaths
Korean and Vietnam Wars: Hundreds of thousands of deaths
21st century war and genocides:
Second Congo War (1998–2003): 5.4 million deaths
Iraq War (2003–2011): 100,000+ civilian deaths
Syrian Civil War (2011–present): 500,000+ deaths
War in Afghanistan (2001–2021): 176,000+ deaths
Ukraine Conflict (2022–present): 1.7 million+ deaths
Darfur Genocide (2003–present): 300,000 deaths
Rohingya Crisis (2016–present): Thousands killed, 700,000+ displaced
Uyghur Persecution (2014–present): 1 million+ detained
Gaza Conflict (2023–2025): 24,100+ deaths
Even excluding war, governments have directly caused tens of millions of deaths through state-led famines, repression, and democide (mass murder by the state). Heard of socialism? Compare this to societies where localized conflicts never reach such devastating scales.
2. The False Comparison: Weak States vs. Strong States
The argument assumes that without government, society would resemble places like Mexico (cartel violence) or African war zones. But these are not examples of voluntary law societies—they are power vacuums left by failed states. They are government-caused break downs of law and order.
A better comparison would be:
Medieval Iceland - A private law society that operated peacefully for centuries.
Pre-colonial Ireland of Brehons - A decentralized system of law and restitution without a central state.
Somali Xeer Law - A voluntary arbitration system that persisted for centuries.
When private institutions enforce law, order emerges voluntarily and spontaneously, not through coercion.
2. 'Most People Would Choose the State'
The claim that most people “choose” the state is false because:
People do not actually choose governments—they are born into them and have no opt-out option.
Coercion does not equal consent. People comply with the state because it violently suppresses alternatives.
Appeal to popularity is a fallacy—historically, most people who lived under monarchy, serfdom, and state religion did not choose them.
If governments were truly voluntary, taxation would be optional, and people could freely choose their legal and defense systems. The state refuses to allow this competition because it cannot survive without coercion.
3. 'Not Being Able to Opt Out Is a Strength'
The idea that the state’s monopoly on law and violence is a strength is an open endorsement of tyranny:
By this logic, slavery, forced military conscription, and totalitarian regimes would also be 'strong' because people cannot opt out.
Strength does not equal morality - the mafia and North Korea are 'strong' in their ability to suppress dissent, but that does not justify their existence.
A voluntary society allows individuals to choose their legal systems. If the state were truly necessary, people would voluntarily fund and support it rather than being forced to through taxation and conscription.
4. What Happens When People Opt Out of Private Law?
The argument assumes that opting out of a private law system leads to chaos. This is false because:
Private law functions through contractual agreements - if someone refuses to participate, they simply lose access to protection, legal recognition, and arbitration.
Today, private arbitration, security, and dispute resolution already exist, even under state monopolies. Removing the state would only strengthen them through market competition.
Example: Insurance companies, private courts, and security firms already enforce rules today. Just like refusing to pay for health insurance means losing coverage, refusing to engage in private law means losing protection and legal recognition.
A system based on voluntary agreements and incentives is far more stable than one based on coercion.
5. 'Competing Defense Agencies Would Be Gangs or Mafias'
A common myth is that in a voluntary society, private protection agencies would act like criminal gangs. But this ignores how competition and market incentives prevent this behavior:
The mafia thrives due to state prohibition and black markets, not because voluntary law creates crime.
In contrast, private companies today compete in arbitration, private security, and enforcement without degenerating into war.
Governments themselves are the biggest organized crime syndicates, engaging in:
Taxation (legalized theft)
Conscription (legalized kidnapping)
War (legalized mass murder)
If Apple and Microsoft settle disputes through courts rather than violence, why would competing private defense agencies act differently?
A private security firm that engaged in shakedowns would lose customers and be replaced—unlike the state, which has no competition and no accountability.
6. 'Wouldn’t the Rich Buy Justice?'
The idea that only the wealthy would get justice in a private system ignores that the rich already manipulate state-run justice systems:
Governments bail out banks while letting small businesses fail.
Politicians are immune to laws that apply to everyone else.
Corporate lobbying and crony capitalism ensure that justice is bought by the highest bidder.
Under private law, justice providers compete. If a private law firm became known for favoritism, customers would switch to a more impartial provide - something impossible under a state monopoly.
Today, many businesses prefer private arbitration over government courts because it is faster, cheaper, and fairer. Private law ensures justice through competition, not coercion.
7. Migration doesn’t prove bigger government is better
People migrate for economic opportunity, not for big government.
India has lower government spending than Australia, but GDP per capita is far lower - this explains migration, not the size of government.
If large government spending attracted migrants, people would move to Venezuela or Zimbabwe instead of places with free markets like Singapore and Hong Kong.
People move to more free countries with better property rights and freer markets, not just those with high state intervention.
1. Governments are the largest sources of war and violence, not private actors.
2. People do not 'choose' the state—it is imposed on them.
3. Coercion is not a strength—voluntary law systems function through incentives, not force.
4. Private law operates through contracts—opting out does not mean chaos.
5. Competing defense agencies would act like businesses, not gangs.
6. The rich already manipulate state justice—competition ensures fairness.
7. People migrate for economic opportunity, not bigger government.
Non-aggression, voluntary association, property rights, and self-ownership are best realized in a system where law and defense are provided through voluntary means, not through a coercive monopoly.
The state is not the solution - it is the greatest violator of these principles.
Another book recommendation in addition to For a New Liberty by Rothbard which recommended earlier:
Ethics of Liberty by the same person.
