[NT!]

[ 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.

[/ 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.

But in reality, I think the idea of a perfectly legitimate state is an academic exercise at best. So is the idea of an AC society with a 'perfectly legitimate' arrangement of security and services. What we should be interested in is a society that does as well as possible at providing security and facilitating mutual esteem, while reducing illegitimate force and coercion as much as possible.

What you are saying is that anyone who supports, accepts or acknowledges the existence of states in general has a completely illegitimate approach to politics. The reality is that there are degrees to which coercive states enjoy voluntary participation, as well as degrees to which voluntary arrangements include coercive elements. 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.