This system[voluntarism] fails in the sight of coercion by force. In fact

coercion of any kind reduces the ideals i think you hold it to have. Well, of course. And your point is?

The other way around is not true, a system of force is not destroyed by acting in only voluntary means.

Not sure what you mean? Actually I think your sentence doesn't make any sense.

Merely by there being no opponents to those that act forcefully. An essential proposal of government is monopoly on violence.

What governments propose is to define 'right' and 'wrong' (an absurd proposal, of course) Governments do not have the monopoly on violence. They *pretend* to have the monopoly of what they call 'legitimate' violence, according to their own baseless definition of 'legitimate'

For if there is none able to combat a singular forceful actor force is no longer a viable means of coercion. 

What?

And other means must be used to coerce. These means are defined in that same government. In the simplest case an oracle is used to provide right from wrong, the king or emperor. Nowadays we see faux-democratic organizations that, ideally, enforce the tyranny of the masses.

Isn't that what your precious democracy is all about?

There's a contest between tyranny of the masses and exploitation/corruption by those with financial incentives or a desire for power.

OK.

The idea that coercion can be communicated about fairly I support strongly, it guarantees a minimum amount of power one can have.  

Again, I don't understand what you say. "coercion can be communicated"? What does that mean?

You know, voluntary interactions : The opposite of cheering the drug laws of the american state.

I'm not cheering the US (drug) laws. Please try to understand. I simply recognize the arrested man continued to live in an area where people comply fully to US laws.

What? People in the US (or in any other country) do not 'fully comply' with the dictates of 'their' governments at all. It's actually impossible to do so (there are virtually tens of thousands of 'laws' and regulations in the books). Furthermore, lots of people don't agree with, or explicitly disobey lots of state 'laws'. And some end up in jail because of doing so.

And I recognize that Americans consider their government to have the intended functionality for else they would be compelled to revolt against it. An exercise also guaranteed by their constitution.

Hand waving. Like I said, (and you ignored) the US was founded as a slave society. Tell me about the constitutional right of slaves to revolt?

Part of it should feel quite provoking to Americans themselves. I hope it is. If I were American I would be beyond disgusted by my governing and it's systems. And I would be patriotic, defending the original values by which the US were founded.

SLAVERY. That was the original value. And it still is.

This all is quite unrelated to cryptography or cypherpunkism,

It is obviously unrelated to cryptography. It is obviously related to anarchist political theory. Considering that 'cypherpunkism' is kinda related to anarchy, I see how the discussion might be relevant.

hich is not in question for the law instances have not shown the ability to break the hiding methods used. They might have applied "intelligence laundering" but it seems they did so effectively, and thus we cannot extrapolate from anything.  

It's the people in it that shape it. This is as much as risk as it is a feature. From chaos men makes shapes, structures. These structures must, by the very absence of it, reimplement what otherwise a government does. Of course the extends and all will depend upon the people. 

        A government is a criminal organization that violates rights to life liberty and property. Those criminal 'functions' of government can't exist in  a voluntary society.

Non sequitur. Criminal is defined precisely by government.

Ah yes. And that is so, because...you asserted it? Here's news for you. "Crime" is defined by common moral sense. Government has nothing to do with the origin of concepts like "natural law" "rights to life, liberty and property" and the like. This is of course the core of the disagreement here. You're assuming that legal positivism is a valid doctrine. Too bad it isn't.

If you intend to use it any other way you should define it. You're trying to transfer the emotional experience of "crime" towards "government". Rights are the very same. 

Only for legal positivists. Government is the biggest violator of natural rights, thus the biggest criminal. That's a fact. Of course, if you don't care about justice, you may not feel anything about that fact, but your lack of feelings is not really the point here... And no, 'natural rights' are not the creation of government. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" <--- natural rights, regardless of the 'god' nonsense. "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," See? Governments do NOT create any right. And, they are supposed to protect them, and FURTHERMORE, governments are supposed to be 'consensual'.

If you want to say something, say it clearly. These statements are of exclusively emotional value, and they contain no reasons. If you wish to express your anger you may, but do not confuse it with logic.

... Right back at you?

I would also propose that in fact most governments now are voluntary societies.

I would propose that you are completely out of touch with reality? Plus, notice that you are thoroughly confusing 'government' with 'society'...

However they exert force on those who choose to participate partially, and choose for some unable to choose. These things I consider despicable but also to some extend necessary and unavoidable.

As to this man, he was capable to halt his participation in the Union but he was not willing. This argument does not apply to him.  

DPR didn't sign the constitution nor the 'social contract'...

If 'people' 'reimplement' what government does, then we are not talking about anarchy.

So in anarchy there is no maintenance of dykes, no roads, no legal tender or banks, no armies, no system of justice and no encouragement of certain economic operations?

I suggest you research the topic yourself. Are you criticizing a system which you seem pretty ignorant of?

Reimplement, in anarchy, just means do it. For a profit or charity in all likelihood. I don't really see why you'd be better off with a "private cooperation" fighting a war over a government fighting a war. You also recreate the problems of governance in those "private co-operations".

....

Note that any union of people for a purpose constitutes a cooperation or business.

Note that I'm talking about voluntary cooperation and respect for the natural rights of third parties. But feel free to come up with a caricature of what you think libertarian anarchy is, and 'debunk' it...

Economically I can fairly say that every function will be taken over by the group that can do the task as financially efficient as possible. Combining that with the historic fact that kingdoms and empires, due to people's ignorance, are the easiest structures to conjure. And that ease makes it have a good return.

Not sure what you're getting at...

Anarchy turns into monarchies for economic and humanitarian reasons.

Yeah well. If you say so....

 

So. My thinking is that anarchy that remains anarchy is in fact quite chaotic, as no rel leaders are permitted to arise.

        I don't see the connection between leaders and their sheep on one hand and 'chaos' on the other.

As soon as structures arise, be it following those that sound right, be it financial returns, be it newspapers. Influence and ability to decide move towards individuals. Without control not to quorums but to actual individuals.

Hard to know what you're saying...

If you prevent these structures from arising at all there is not even the ability for two person interaction. If you permit these structures to a certain level you have (a political problem with no means to deal with it and) leaders, to the extend you permit.

You are making a very binary distinction between a leader and the followers, but you must understand that one must always follow an idea. Whatever presents the idea becomes the leader. That leader may be fair, however, and this is what governments nowadays pretend to be. In fact, most people do agree that the way it is done now is the best way we can.

And your "argumentum ad populum" matters, why, exactly?

"Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." and Churchill was certainly a leader.

Okay. Now you're quoting a bit of meaningless garbage from one of the worst fascists of the 20th century. That's too much for me =P I suggest you research all the subjects that you are clearly ignorant of (like the nature of government and rights). Them you'll realize that all your criticisms so far are baseless. If you feel like re-stating your position in a short and clear paragraph or two, go ahead and I might reply. Otherwise, I see no point in further communication.

 

It's quite possible to have 'order' without 'leaders'. It's called self-government. Or doing what you like and leaving your neighbor alone.

You will find that everyone becoming his own country is not a more pleasant form of governance. Especially not when you will form unions.

I have speculated about that extremism. Of course it is possible to have a "United Peoples" instead of "United Nations", where every person is required to contributed the way the UN requires it, and every person must enter into treaties of his/her liking.

Sadly it fails due to the people's ignorance. The likelihood you will have a fruitful life, lived pleasantly, becomes lower.  

Of course it's possible to have discussions together, to rule as a non-forcible collective. That's a very unstable situation however. Just like chaos.

Individuals can interact as individuals, voluntary and with no 'chaos' in sight. I don't see why it should be 'unstable'.

Taking what I said above as the starting point, doesn't it seem likely a large group of people will enter into a "Trade Union of Amsterdam Constitutional Treaty" where those people may exclusively trade with each other, lest explicitly mentioned in the treaty, and there is a committee assigned for the justitional needs of the union, etc, etc ,etc. You recreate government with peculiar overhead.

The step towards warring between people is oh so very small. It will be legal, certainly, but some treaties may demand retribution or punishment of the war starter. Not unlike a murdered would now be judged and charged and punished.

Freedom is not served by this system. Neither is wealth or comfort.

Now, you can say of course that that's not supposed to happen. Or that that would make it "not anarchy" anymore. But the truth is then that it is easy to become "not anarchy" and hard to stay anarchy.

That's what I mean with "That's a very unstable situation".