With or without a state, there is not ONE human being that has ever lived on this planet toward whom force hasn’t been initiated. Force/aggression WILL be initiated, period. Take it as an axiom, if you prefer. If you don’t, we may as well argue the superiority of the HP (Happiness Principle) by which the only proper behavior is the one which makes the most people around you happy – and other such fairy tales.
The question we are discussing is merely about the TYPE (nature, size, predictability, volatility, and all other aspects) of the forces around you. I prefer a stable and predictable force – one whose whim changes at glacial speed due to the checks/balances of the democratic process. You prefer a dynamic and volatile one – driven by the “free” market in POWER. This difference is not unlike the difference between a conservative and an aggressive investor or a mortgage buyer – the former preferring fixed and predictable income/payments over the long term vs. the latter who’s willing to take (MUCH) more risk for (presumably) higher returns. Except the risks and returns of the riskier strategy are nothing more than a conjecture on your part since there’s no data to perform a back-test.
So no, I don’t have to prove anything to you as we’re both living the sustainable REALITY that I claim. It is YOU who has to prove that your sand castle model is in fact transferable into reality if you want people to subscribe to the concept. So far, after this thread, I am equally (perhaps even a bit less) convinced that your model holds water.
And FYI, I prefer losing to winning my arguments. I am merely a curious skeptic before anything else, and am not married to any ideology (life is too short for commitments of such sort). This allows me to especially look forward to losing an argument. Sadly, it hasn’t happened here yet.
Z.