Mucho apologies for neglecting this thread for so long. Moved to a new location and got a new job coming up in 2 weeks. w00t!
Patashu wrote:If there is no governing body that holds a monopoly on the use of force and thus the ability to stop others from using it, then those in an anarchic system with the most force will control those who lack it. You'll end up back in a monarchy soon enough.
Or democracy, or theocracy, or any other governmental system. I.E. You just described what happens when a state takes over: "...those [...] with the most force will control those who lack it."
If force over others is what is bad or wrong, then you can't have government. This is contradiction that statists have to put up with. You can't put forth an argument that you need a government to stop the use of force of the strong against the weak. You're describing the role of government. The reason government has control is because it uses force.
Inevitably some body needs to control the use of force, or someone who has no inclinations against using it for their personal gain/the gain of their particular group will do it for you, and it won't be pretty.
We can control the use of force by not controlling other people or promoting systems or institutions, such as governments, which use force to control people. If you want to minimize force in your personal life, for example, you don't go to a biker bar and try to put everyone in a headlock--that's a plainly obvious example. But it's as plainly obvious to an anarchist that you don't reduce the amount of force and violence in society by granting an institution a monopoly on the use of force. If you want to reduce the use of force in a society, the solution is not to come up with solutions the require the use of force. The solution is to come up with non-violent solutions. Government is not and will never be a non-violent solution.
Also, wouldn't your ability to join a DRO be limited by spatial constraints? Say that you're in a certain part of the Earth where almost everybody has decided to join a certain DRO for hundreds of miles around but you want to join a different DRO instead. Are they really going to want to support you, given the extensive costs of providing infrastructure and services to just one person hundreds of miles away? It'll either be prohibitively costly or outright refused, so you don't escape the problem states have, where it costs money to change states.
It's a cost benefit analysis to decide whether to start your own DRO, someone else's or stay where you are. You're also neglecting the efficiency and creativity that a market environment produces (for lack of a better word). If everyone in my town is using wooden axes, how easy would it be for me to sell an iron ax to the people? Incredibly easy. The same would be true for a great new business proposition from a DRO entrepreneur. I don't know what it would be, but I don't have to know. The reason I don't have to know is because the point of having a free market isn't for the efficiency or the creativity. It's for the ability to be efficient and creative; something for which you are punished in a government system. All laws are a veritable threat upon your life should you choose to break them and ignore all government threats. This essentially ceases the thought processes which allow for growth in the first place. Without the restriction of creativity, who knows what people would come up with? But again, it's not so much that they would come up with something (though they undoubtedly would, as history has shown), it's that than can--that they are not threatened by an institution for breaking regulations or codes or laws.