[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
What we should be interested in is a society that does as well as possible at providing security and facilitating mutual esteem,

[/ QUOTE ]

That sounds wonderful.

[ QUOTE ]
while reducing illegitimate force and coercion as much as possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, what if they are mutually exclusive? Which one is more important to you?

[ QUOTE ]
What you are saying is that anyone who supports, accepts or acknowledges the existence of coercive states in general has a completely illegitimate approach to politics.

[/ QUOTE ]

See, there you go again, using your personal definition of a word I use differently to frame my position incorrectly. And since I've explicitly called you on it, you must be doing it on purpose.

[ QUOTE ]
The reality is that there are degrees to which coercive states enjoy voluntary participation,

[/ QUOTE ]

So what? If I go to a movie with you, then stab you at the end, is this somehow better because we did something voluntary first?

[ QUOTE ]
No, a market is not a state. You asked, why couldn't individuals work together to create a state-like entity comprised of voluntary participation to accomplish the tasks typically assigned to a government?

I had previously proposed that exactly such an entity would constitute a legitimate government and you responded by saying that it doesn't count as a real state. We can call it whatever we want: a proto-state, a market entity, a confederacy of dunces, who cares? It's a plan for running things that might work. I just found it curious that you were shooting it down when I proposed it earlier, then suggesting it could work in your version of society.

[/ QUOTE ]

I said it didn't count as a real state. I didn't "shoot it down". Now I'm asking you something that arises soley through market forces is a state. Also, what differentiates this "state-like thing" from, say, north korea?

Also, you still haven't answered my question.

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 ]
as well as degrees to which voluntary arrangements include coercive elements.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this another "you have to eat or die" thing? Because that [censored] is getting really old. Even if I come to you for protection because some third party is coercing me, the transaction between yourself and me is totally voluntary.

Don't conflate independent coercive elements.

[ QUOTE ]
Power and force exist on a spectrum. I think it's entirely possible that we can move closer to the power end of the spectrum using the model of a relatively benign state than we can by relying on markets to empower society. This is because the empowerment one can gain through a market does not flow along geographic boundaries, or evenly among the participants in a market, or in a stable, predictable way that can be cultivated and nurtured into a legitimate political arrangement. It flows with capital, plain and simple. I am not saying that this is inherently right or wrong, but it does not lend itself to the type of empowerment that one needs to form legitimate political communities.

[/ QUOTE ]

This sounds wonderful, but it's all emotion. You're either for aggressive action or you are not. Your "fantasyland" involuntary state sounds great, but I would bet not everyone will agree.

I'm wondering what you're going to do with the dissenters.