[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Why would I consider those voluntary if they aren't?

I'm still not sure what you mean when you ask where to draw the line. You draw it at "involuntary".


[/ QUOTE ]

My point is that you can't base a society on voluntary interaction and trading when so few things don't affect others. Nobody can drive a car, nobody can really do anything that pollutes the environment, nobody can play loud music.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not? You're suggesting that the possibility of involuntary transactions makes a voluntary society impossible? This is the "zomg there will still be murderers in AC land, it's doomed to failure" argument.

Of course there are things that effect other people. Most of them aren't enough of a problem for anyone to do anything about it.

The kid down the street sometimes drives by my house with his radio blaring. You're saying that because of this I must logically accept a state? The state hasn't put a stop to it (just as it hasn't stopped pollution), so I'm not really sure how you jump from "problem" to "necessity of a state".

[ QUOTE ]
Again, you haven't actually replied to this, you simply keep saying "voluntary transactions" and I'm trying to talk about the practical complications therein.

[/ QUOTE ]

Having an involuntary society doesn't magically make those practical complications disappear. So what exactly do you want to talk about?