To be sure no one person can exactly, or precisely, show how property rights would be protected in an Anarchist society.
So it does not follow that because whatever answer, or suggestion, has been offered and is not readily accepted as proper or conceivable is in some way allowing the state back into the equation in a different form.
No single person can truly know how the services, now currently provided, and enforced - at the point of a gun - by the state, would operate under a stateless society. The argument should therefore be over the states monopoly of aggression. Without this basic tenet, it would not exist very long.
I'd suggest looking upon those who are foremost in the field of such thought such as Hoppe:
Also, Butler Schaffer has some interesting thoughts to add:
Then there's some good material that has recently come to light, covered by the Bionic Mosquito blog:
And finally even Rothbard had trouble convincing everyone about his ideas regarding Anarchy:
Hope this helps to forward the conversation.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: