Because capitalism was used in lieu of market. Voluntary socialism can only emerge under a capitalistic (market based) order, not from a socialistic one.
I prefer the terms market anarchism and voluntarism myself. They are much less ambiguous.
You didn’t have to dig that hard to find an example for an occupation and collaborators with which the occupiers are more than happy to “coexist”. I’m sorry but it’s ridiculous to persist in using this as evidence for your position.
I agree. The fact that power (force) markets are different from all other goods/services is reflected in the fact that the contracts for power (force) “services” are also different from contracts for all other goods services. This is actually my position, and I don’t see how it helps yours.
Where is that huge demand today? I assume you are aware that most people on this planet live under un-enforcable security “contracts” with power (force) monopolies.
The distinction stands in theory: The more power (force) a provider has, the higher the “price” the customer pays. It’s quite a peculiar “good/service” that way – a higher “supply” of something resulting in a higher “price” to the consumer.
The distinction also stands in practice as there is no evidence of a free (non-monopolist) market in power (force) while there are plenty of examples of free markets in all other goods/services through history and across mankind.
Its the only one I could thing of right off hand… and really doesn’t it disprove your collusive territorial monopoly thesis?
Because people don’t agree to unenforceable contracts. You admit that in the first place, there can be such a thing as a free market in security right? Where contracts are enforceable and you can change security providers etc etc… The minarchist prediction is that this free market would form a monopoly, which would render previously enforceable contracts unenforceable. Since people don’t agree to unenforceable contracts, this can’t happen.
[edit: didn’t see this last night] Well there’s the fact that people still have to pay private security to protect them, since the cops don’t perform their hobbesian function. As far as a demand to be protected from the state, I think it exists but practically everyone thinks they’re benefitting from the state’s existence. Poor people think they are, rich people think they are… but there are plenty of black markets for things the state illegalizes/taxes too heavily (drugs, cigarettes, media). You don’t have to buy tanks to protect yourself from the intrusion of the state.
Your framework is all wrong on this issue. See the last part of my previous post.