[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So you're no longer undecided?

[/ QUOTE ]

Being against illegitimate violence doesn't make me an anarchist. You do not hold a monopoly on claims to nonviolence.

What am I going to do about violence? I'm not going to initiate violence against anyone, and to the extent that I'm able, I'm going to discourage others from doing so either. That's what I decided to do a long time ago, and I have.

[ QUOTE ]
Whether it "counts" or not is not the issue in this question. If such a voluntary arrangement arose, why would it be incapble of providing whatever security that a state is capable of?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it's the issue. We got off on this entire tangent because Borodog claimed that the state is, by definition, an initiator of illegitimate force. When I responded with a definition that did not include force, you and bk responded that such an arrangement is not really a state. And yet now you are asking me why just such an arrangement couldn't provide all the services we typically expect from a government.

Well, if such an arrangement succeeds in providing the services of a state, then it's a state, and your previous objection to my definition doesn't really hold water. To answer your question: do I think it could happen? I think a state operating via voluntary cooperation and assent, high in participation and enfranchisement, has a much better chance of legitimately providing services than one which does not.

[/ QUOTE ]

So now a market is a state? You want to redefine words, then claim that I oppose something under your definition because I said I oppose something using that word, even though I used a different definition. This sort of semantical BS is usually what ACers are accused of engaging in, and this sort of semantical BS is also what is usually accused of making this forum unreadable. And it's true.

Mr. X: I don't like ice cream, but I like hot dogs.
Mr. Y: What if I put hot dogs in an ice cream container? Then you would dislike hot dogs!

If you want to call a fuzzy bunny "the state" and claim I don't like it because it's named that, then go right ahead.

Let me go back to a question you neglected:

Does a "state", in whatever definition you're using, have exclusive control over a set of geographical points?

In other words, can I, living on one piece of property, freely move my property out of one "state" and into another, in the same way I might change my homeowner's insurnace from one company to another?

[ QUOTE ]
You're not convinced that a state can work. Me neither. Now what?

Well, for one, if you think you can do better, you have to give me security that isn't dependent on my ability to pay for it. Because right now, that's what I've got.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have to give you [censored]. In fact, that's the entire point - you're not entitled to anything from me. What you may or may not have under the status quo is immaterial - you beg the question of what you have being legitimate in the first place.