I'll keep this short:
Brasky - totally agree. If we're talking "totally anarchy," then that means we have to allow individuals to voluntarily create a State, even if it means that in a few short years, those very same people are now clamouring about the oppressivness when they can't leave it.
Again, I like the idea of your arguments , Mark, I really do. You and I can do our dance where you say, "but your arguments are strawman and flawed" and I can say, "oh yeah, show me where this state of Total Anarchy has ever existed" and you reply, "it's never had a chance because of individuals who sought to oppress others".... blah blah blah.
So I have a question, since you also say that this is part of "Man's Nature" to discover and live a morality that allows for the most productive and positive life, which = maximum individual liberty = "total anarchy."
If this was part of Man's inherant nature, what the hell happened?
...and I mean way back... back in the hunter gatherer days. It would seem to be that back then, in the early history of Homo Sapien, your condition was met: there were no states and individuals lived within their groups as both individuals and members of their tribe/community/whatever you wanna call it, but this was a voluntary grouping for the increased chance of survival, rather than any imposed will of a "state."
But something happened.
Centralization of Leadership, Specialization of tasks amongst the population, all these these traits that Anthropoligsts have observed through archeological finds show that somewhere, somehow, Man went from "theoretically" a social animal with looslely structured, voluntary groups (as evidenced by when tribes splintered off) into the centralized States as we have them today.
So what happened? This almost seems to me be the "Anarchists Paradox" if anything:
If human beings are by their nature their most successful in a State of "total anarchy," then why hasn't it been achieved (or sustained) at any point in recorded human history?
Logically, yes, I concede.... and did a long time ago... that the free-marketeer philosophy is the better one academically and logically. However, whether or not it's possible to achieve is the real question, and thus far has not been proven to be feasible or sustainable.]
...unless you have some case studies you'd like to share with me.