Some people tell me I’d be enslaved in a heart beat in a stateless society, and I tell them that may or may not be true. But I also tell them that:
There are costs to enslave people.
I at least have a chance to not be a slave in a stateless society whereas I was born into slavery because I was born into the state.
Centralization of power is necessary for private slavery to exist long term.
Some people have ethics and won’t enslave people even if they could.
Question 1. Is there anything I should add? Question 2. Is any of my above reasoning faulty?
I think you should merely ask them to substantiate their claim. To say you’d be “enslaved in a heart beat in a stateless society” is a mighty claim, and brings along with it a huge burden of proof, especially if they think this of a 1st world society, like the United States.
Your arguments aren’t bad, but it seems like you’re just taking the burden of proof for the fun of it, and that is most definitely not a way to win an argument - rather, it completely compromises your whole position.
Thanks:) They actually say that because they think I’m stupid, which could very well be the case. This is pretty much the only forum I go to where I’m not ridiculed.
Anyway, good point that a mistake is taking the burden of proof.
Ask them what specific aspect of government is keeping you from being enslaved. It’ll take you some time to work out the kinks, but it will eventually boil down to nothing special about government, but about human nature not being inherently evil.
Then you have to watch out for the false dilemma - “Oh, so you don’t think human nature is inherently evil? You think everyone is completely good all the time?”
That can easily be solved. I will send you one of my posts that responded to the question of “why will private defense not enslave us?”
How does it work in democracy? We have separate police forces in each city loosely controlled by the states. How come they don’t fight it out for power while they have a monopoly on defense (giving them a huge edge)? Perhaps one would answer “the federal army.” Yet then you have an even bigger question: How come the army doesn’t go evil on us and try to enslave us? We arrive at the conclusion “Humans aren’t inherently evil and immoral.” If they were, we would be living in a state of constant tribal warfare. How come our present system generally works? Well, it just does - we find it much more convenient to follow the law and be peaceful than not to be. The same incentives remain when the state is removed.
There’s nothing inherent about government that makes society work. If humans were naturally evil then the army could easily enslave us. But they don’t (in a direct sense). This suggests that there’s something about human nature/society that wants stability and peace. This doesn’t change when the state is removed.
I was just pointing out the tendency for people to think about such things in terms of false dilemmas. Of course a false dilemma can be easily “solved” by simply pointing it out as such. 
Well.. I don’t even know how to define intelligence, much less measure it, but the fact that you’ve come to an anti-statist position gives you credibility in my book. In the first place, I think personal honesty and self-reflection are far more valuable than sheer brain-power. After all, how smart do you really have to be to see the problems that institutionalizing (the initiation of) violence is bound to lead to?