But what do you mean by 'rational'?
Able to analyze cost versus benefit.
Seriously, though, what kind of incentives do you refer?
Economic incentives; people might not do business with you if you smoke cocaine, sodomize dogs and own guns. Similar to a credit rating, a contract rating could be used by organizations to screen out people they did not want to associate with. Many people don't think this would occur in a big city, but without a government, who knows what could nonviolently fill the void. There might be also be Private Defense Agencies to help protect property. Criminals would know if they attempted to violate someone's rights, they could face instant death.
My quote does not comment upon the future, except the logical inference that, given human nature over all of human history, there is no logical reason to think it will change now or at all.
There is no logical reason to think that the basis of man is violence, instead of man being in violent situations.
Axiomatic reasoning is indeed an excellent tool to arrive at almost certain truths, but has limits and cannot lead anyone to a Grand Unifying Truth!
Incorrect, if the reasoning is not flawed, deduction is completely true.
I say that if I have the right to defend my natural rights (however derived or labeled) with force, there does exist a collective right to force, but only in the defense of those rights.
If you do not delegate the right to the protection of the rights, they do not have the right to protect your rights.
Also understand that I do think a standing army violates the above principles and we'd be better organized by member state militias, which would be best organized by county level militias, which all agree to submit to national authority depending on the local take of the threat to the nation. Kind of like the way utility companies all have cooperative agreements to recover from national calamities.
What is a member state?
Do 'we' have a right to bill you for services rendered, since you didn't buy into the plan before the crises?
It is nonsense to claim that I owe you for something that I did not agree to.
What exactly does this look like in reality? How is it organized? Who is in charge?
Competition will sort this out, with the best and most efficient businesses surviving. We cannot and should not act like a state and try to plan out how society should be organized, or how it will deal with its troubles.
How do we handle the would be 'warlord'? This ideal you present very much looks like a feudal society!
Warlords will be driven out by the aforementioned solutions for criminals.
How do we insure justice for the weak from the strong? Are they not entitled to the same rights as the capable?
The strong will voluntarily support the weak, or the weak will support themselves. And yes they are, but if you rape a woman, and she has a beautiful child prodigy baby, does that make the crime any less a crime?
Are they allowed to voluntarily colletivize for their own defense? How about in the areas they live? Can they colletively hire a security force for the territories in which the collective own? Can they elect a private board to manage the roads and personnel hired by collective contribution? If they do this, they self-govern and the apparatus to do so collectively is a state, is it not?
Yes to all except the last. It is not because it acts as a club, which you join and can leave at will, instead of a violent entity that claims you are subject to it. If it did so, yes, it would be a state.
I don't think I'm arguing a limited state because of prevention, rather as a deterance.
If you deter, aren't you preventing?
And how do we achieve justice in Anarchy?
Private arbitration.
How can we be assured of evidentiary rules?
Competition will assure this, as it does for every other standardization issue.
What if the accused doesn't recognize your court?
He will face an economic incentive to agree to a trial because if he does not, the court might tell a contract rating organization that this person does not recognize a legitimate court, and he will suffer from people not wanting to do business with him.
What if the penalized by arbitration renegs upon his agreement to submit to the arbitor's rule? What then? Is force then justified? And by whom?
Force is then justified if he agreed beforehand to be subject to force.
Is it justified only by the victim? Or can the victim use force by proxy?
It depends on what he agreed too.
What if the victim is mistaken as to the aggressor and kills an innocent in retribution?
Then the victim would be a murderer.
Power is achieved either by force or collective assent (enough to quash violent dissent), how will it be distributed under an Anarcho-capitalist regime?
I do not understand your question.
Anarchism is not a form of government, so it cannot be a regime.
if all locations are legally claimed (although not all occupied)
If all locations are rightfully claimed then they are all occupied.