youre saying im trying to catch you out however im simply using your own principles of a stateless society and actually youre rejecting your own principles by using a means of justification to close your arguments.
you say tax is immoral and that the justification argument of why tax is ok, has to be kicked out the window because its simply about morals.
yet when i apply your own concepts in your stateless world, you start to justify how a stateless society can work.
you say laws shouldnt exist but then say a court can handle disputes. now dont forget the people sitting courts could not be legal experts, because there are no laws for them to make judgements on.
theyre just ordinary people passing their own opinions on everything and youre saying that this individuals opinions would hold weight.
and they are just opinions remember they are not professionals theyre not falling back on laws or rules or precedent its simply "what they think" yet you elevate them to a position of authority.
what you dont realise is that in your state free world, in order to make it work, you are actually starting to create formal channels by which things are done - i.e the building blocks of a state.
when we start from scratch with a state free world and then put arguments and scenarios to you, your responses and solutions start to mimic what a state does.
If a society can 'mimic what a state' does without using taxation and threats, that's fine by me.
I don't say that laws shouldn't exist either. I just think they should be defined from the bottom up, via the free market, rather than imposed from above. Common law came before legislation, not after it.
You say I am creating formal channels by which things should be done. Others say I don't explain how things should be done. I have only made suggestions
of how things may be done, but it seems I am damned if I make suggestions and damned if I don't.
I can only dump some of my thoughts here and you can take them or leave them, much like a state free society would.