You know I respect your struggle with your ideals. I go through that now and then. That's not really what the argument for voluntaryism (libertarianism, anarchocapitalism, abolitism) js though. While corruption and outright murder by the state are important to point out, the voluntaryist argument is much more fundamental.
The foundation is the Non Aggression Principle which says that the only crime is the initiation of violence, or aggression more specifically. If you can accept that all forms of aggression (violence, threats of violence and coercion) are criminal, then you must accept that the state is a criminal organization.
If you still don't understand, I'll answer any questions or objections you have, but that is it. There is no argument for the state after you accept the Non Aggression Principle.
Well, I think anarcho-capitalism has a different take on what "anarchy" is, so much so that "traditional" anarchists don't even consider it to be anarchist, so feel free to ask questions about specific problems you have with it. It sounds pretty good in theory because a lot of the same problems with the State could exist in ancap, just in different ways, or some of the problems are eliminated maybe with new ones.
For example, some people have argued that government is needed because people are bad and without government they will do bad things. Ancaps have flipped that logic around and questioned why, if people are bad, that they should be put in charge of other people? Won't they abuse their authority if they can to create a worse situation than people being on their own? And if people want to do bad things, and other people want to protect themselves, doesn't that act as a kind of counter-balance that would prevent bad people from doing certain bad things?
So, just because there isn't a central government structure, doesn't mean that private companies and individuals couldn't create institutions to do the things that government currently does. You can do more thought experiments - say a bad guy is threatening a few good people and there is no government. So they could start up a police group with a few guys, to protect against that threat. Either it's volunteer run, a company that people can "subscribe" to to get protection, or a nonprofit, etc. Not forced in to by taxes, and not preventing other people from doing the same thing (which is different from the current system of policing).
Through thinking of how some of these things might play out, we see a kind of "private government institutions" arise, which is not the same a singular government group, just like we don't have one grocery store for the whole country but multiple competing grocery stores. The bad guy is now threatened by this police group, so they likely decide to stop breaking the law, or they might try to just like people break the law when a government exists. It's not a perfect solution to every problem, but the hope is that just like competing businesses tend to produce better products, that these competing government institutions could offer better law, security, etc. than a current central government does.
In the hypothetical scenario where a police group was formed, someone might be in charge (police chief?), someone second in command, and then they might have regular police officers - so hierarchy can naturally form, contrary to the claims of the "traditional" anarchists (and this was one concern you mentioned having I think).
And so on, we could continue the thought experiments to see how different things would work out.
I don't know about Antifa or BLM in general, but anarchists and ancoms generally avoid having to consume and rather build alternative economies and services. As such, they are often targeted by law enforcement. The perception is that they are being protected, but that is propaganda, it's what you were allowed to see. Dig in a bit deeper and you will see the hidden animosity that is present between the US government and the radical left. They wish to bring them down, and the US gov is certainly not stupid enough to not take them seriously.
You know I respect your struggle with your ideals. I go through that now and then. That's not really what the argument for voluntaryism (libertarianism, anarchocapitalism, abolitism) js though. While corruption and outright murder by the state are important to point out, the voluntaryist argument is much more fundamental.
The foundation is the Non Aggression Principle which says that the only crime is the initiation of violence, or aggression more specifically. If you can accept that all forms of aggression (violence, threats of violence and coercion) are criminal, then you must accept that the state is a criminal organization.
If you still don't understand, I'll answer any questions or objections you have, but that is it. There is no argument for the state after you accept the Non Aggression Principle.
hierarchy is ok, but hierarchical organization doesn't require a State
I can also try to answer questions or objections
Well, I think anarcho-capitalism has a different take on what "anarchy" is, so much so that "traditional" anarchists don't even consider it to be anarchist, so feel free to ask questions about specific problems you have with it. It sounds pretty good in theory because a lot of the same problems with the State could exist in ancap, just in different ways, or some of the problems are eliminated maybe with new ones.
For example, some people have argued that government is needed because people are bad and without government they will do bad things. Ancaps have flipped that logic around and questioned why, if people are bad, that they should be put in charge of other people? Won't they abuse their authority if they can to create a worse situation than people being on their own? And if people want to do bad things, and other people want to protect themselves, doesn't that act as a kind of counter-balance that would prevent bad people from doing certain bad things?
So, just because there isn't a central government structure, doesn't mean that private companies and individuals couldn't create institutions to do the things that government currently does. You can do more thought experiments - say a bad guy is threatening a few good people and there is no government. So they could start up a police group with a few guys, to protect against that threat. Either it's volunteer run, a company that people can "subscribe" to to get protection, or a nonprofit, etc. Not forced in to by taxes, and not preventing other people from doing the same thing (which is different from the current system of policing).
Through thinking of how some of these things might play out, we see a kind of "private government institutions" arise, which is not the same a singular government group, just like we don't have one grocery store for the whole country but multiple competing grocery stores. The bad guy is now threatened by this police group, so they likely decide to stop breaking the law, or they might try to just like people break the law when a government exists. It's not a perfect solution to every problem, but the hope is that just like competing businesses tend to produce better products, that these competing government institutions could offer better law, security, etc. than a current central government does.
In the hypothetical scenario where a police group was formed, someone might be in charge (police chief?), someone second in command, and then they might have regular police officers - so hierarchy can naturally form, contrary to the claims of the "traditional" anarchists (and this was one concern you mentioned having I think).
And so on, we could continue the thought experiments to see how different things would work out.
Ah, a magic dirt theorist.
Have you seen Africa? Have you considered why every place with a black majority becomes a third world shithole? Why do you think that is?
I don't know about Antifa or BLM in general, but anarchists and ancoms generally avoid having to consume and rather build alternative economies and services. As such, they are often targeted by law enforcement. The perception is that they are being protected, but that is propaganda, it's what you were allowed to see. Dig in a bit deeper and you will see the hidden animosity that is present between the US government and the radical left. They wish to bring them down, and the US gov is certainly not stupid enough to not take them seriously.