>>17714
>Yeah, and then you have wannabe government version 1, wannabe government version 2, wannabe government version 3 … :^)
Yes, but then someone wins and founds a state. Usually, stable states are ones in which the boundaries of different states are based on which set of law can find its itself in enough agreement among the people willing to do violence in the population in order that said rule of law or cultural mode may be enforced.
>If you are uneasy about PDAs trying to arrest each other, you can always live in gated community where, as an internal rule, only one PDA is allowed, and you can call it government.
That's a rather small country. Probably after a period of chaos, other people would set up similar gated communities, and we'd return to a situation like Celtic European times with small tribes in hill forts. However, disagreements over the NAP are going to mean these communities fight, and they'll conquer each other until you end up pretty much back where we are now, but with a lot more death to get back here.
>>17716
>Except there is nothing about a monopoly on force that makes it more moral.
A lack of a monopoly on force means war in that area, so a monopoly is more moral than the alternative. We can then ask which monopoly would be more moral, so perhaps a lassez faire minarchy with a strong nightwatchmen state can work once more.
The Neoreactionaries have their head on straight here.
First Order (through conquest), Then Government/Law (prescribing the rights to be enforced), and only then Freedom (tweaking the law until you can have the most scope for action within the bounds of what holds the state together).
Monopoly can just as easily bring a lack of freedom, but only monopoly in law holds the possibility of freedom, since a lack of monopoly merely replaces the single, procedural, and relatively polite robber, with an absolute seething mass of violent thieves.
Polyarchy is how freedom undoes itself, because it unleashes the freedom to take away others freedom. We must take away the freedom from those people to have anything left at all. Total freedom is impossible unless you are a God.
>I'd rather people have disagreements than say fuck it and do something which they know that is wrong.
People will have disagreements by killing each other, until you settle the disagreement with someone emerging from the chaos to bring order.
>Also the free market seeks efficiency so the most moral and efficient system will always take place.
Markets only work well if property rights are well protected. States are best at doing that, because a state can lay down a consistent set of law across a whole vast territory, whereas a polyarchy scenario creates transition costs due to business owners having to account for different local laws. Business uncertainty can paralyze markets, and sudden shifts in law can make stock values plummet.
Therefore, this is as much an argument against democracy as anarchy. In democracy there are constant and ceaseless battles between interest groups to "progress" in the direction they want the state to progress. This creates uncertainty and creates a ratchet effect where the scope of the state goes outside its role as a referee. Democracy and anarchy therefore are related, and in fact, classically speaking, they are both on the left. It is only the relatively recent Anarcho-Capitalist theory that becomes so confused about things. Anarchy in practice would be the perfect democracy; rule by mob justice. All anarchism resolves to anarcho-communism, and then after that, as the dream dies, a scrabble to remake the state by warring gangs.