So I'm going to use the United States as an example because it's where I live and the governing system I know most about. Right now, Obama goes on TV and says "I am abolishing the government. We're leaving the whitehouse and all federal employees, and through an agreement I've made with the states, all state employees are done. We are all quitting work at this very moment. No military, no fbi, No foodstamps, no wellfair benefits, no unemployment insurance, no medicair, no Medicaid, no social security, no mint, no public schools, no state, city or local police, no firefighters, no FDA, no EPA, if you want these services, you will have to build them from the ground up.
My question to you is what do you think would happen? This is not a trick question, but its one I need an answer to if you are talking about more than theory.
It wouldn't be "if you want these services, you will have to build them from the ground up".. It would be, "if you want these services you will have to pay for them yourself", but why anyone want to pay for those ponzi schemes you are listing as services.
Oh, if only. But wait. Here's what would happen. Mass protests by special interest groups, and statists with no particular interest. Then a quick re-instatement of govt. As long as the worship of coercion is a popular superstition, there will be mass self enslavement, and the few who resist will be involuntary victims. People who call themselves "voluntarists" will act against their conscience, under duress, with the ultimate threat of death. Two groups of victims will suffer. One innocent, one guilty of self deception and violation of the rights of the innocent. This is the state of the world.
Only a grass roots movement which discredits the use of violence to inflict superstition on all will save humanity.
@onevoluntaryist you didn't answer my question. What I'm saying is that right now, the government provides certain services, however imperfect they are. Statists will say these services are the intended function of government. Things like the FBI, but also local police departments which have a mandate from the people to investigate crimes and arrest people, otherwise they would be hanging from streetlights. What I am trying to ask you or anyone who wants to answer is how would a volunterist society ensure a fair distribution of services. I am not claiming the government is perfect, but as it stands I don't have to pay the police to investigate my mothers murder, and if I'm hit by a car in the street and my leg is broken, the nearest hospital will prevent me from dying regardless of my ability to pay. I am trying to figure out if all this talk about anarchism and voluntarism is supposed to exist outside of a theoretical framework, so I'm saying the entire government is stripped away, what happens. What's the alternative. What does the new society look like? How big is it in square miles? Is there a war between two small towns over resources? What happens if someone tries to grab power ina newly created voluntarist utopia? For the record, I'm not setting out to troll you, I don't share your opinion but I'm trying to get some clarification on what it is you actually believe.
In Somalia the central govt. collapsed. War lords filled the gap. Some say that is what the voluntarist society would look like. But consider that in Somalia no grass roots movement against govt. caused the central govt. to fall. No change in society occurred. Without popular support no social system can exist. The greater the support, the more homogenous the population, the stronger the belief system. But belief does not create reality. The "belief" was almost 100% in Nazi Germany. That didn't save them. Their system was inhuman, irrational, and therefore unsustainable, even if they had won the war. Our system is the same.
So don't ask me to predict the future voluntarist society. Or give guarantees. I can predict this system will fail. I can predict a new paradigm is necessary and it is a non-violent, voluntarist one. The exact way it will manifest is anyone's guess.
This is fairly similar to what the communists said.
Same thing that happened when the soviet union stopped providing food. When a government ends its monopoly on food it does not mean there is "no food". No monopoly on education does not mean "no schools". All it takes for these services to continue is demand and supply. While demand and supply are unstoppable, rapid economic changes can cause temporary shortages.
A gigantic list of monopolies simultaneously stopping services like you describe would be quite tumultuous providing the free market had no warning time to prepare.
Even if the free market had time to prepare to avoid widespread shortages, for every one of the services provided, the population has likely forgotten or never known the value of many things. Value assessment and return on investment decisions will require constant adjustment, "Am I being ripped off for this tomato?", "Is it worth taking the shitty pothole filled road to work to save on tolls?", "Would paying for armed guards reduce the looting in my store enough to be worth it?", "Is it worthwhile to continue testing this new drug, or should we risk going out of business by causing negligent deaths that ruin our reputation?"
A question for you. Is slavery right/wrong mostly because of its effects/consequences on society, or because of moral theory? What is the primary thing that decides morality for you? Would you let 5 people die, or would you murder an innocent to save them? Should people use principals, or should they imagine what their own idea of good is, and do whatever it takes to cause that good?