Comment: You're confused and rude.

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: if you own yourself you can (see in situ)

You're confused and rude.

You're confused and rude. That you can't form sentences or use punctuation, much less grammar, is a sign that any attempt to rectify the confusion would be a long and likely hopeless project.

But never let it be said I will not tilt at windmills.

Law does not require a state. Government does not require a state. Every organization that exists has leaders. The chess club has a president. The philharmonic society has a steering committee. They govern, but by voluntary arrangements.

No one supposes a free society would not have laws or governance. They merely suppose the rejection of the assertion of coercion as the legitimizing factor. We merely need to get enough people to disbelieve the illusion of legitimacy. You may disbelieve this is possible. You may be right. What I find interesting is the hostility you have to the concept, or to people engaged in this endeavor.

In your formulation anyone with more than you has power over you. In your society, as in our current one, we see perpetual conflict over resources where the strong gain more and the weak lose more as a result of this belief. The result of statism, especially anarcho-socialism which must have some cabal with a monopoly on force regardless of the rhetoric, is perpetual conflict over power.

People everywhere believe in certain morality. This morality is resultant from our existence, whether you consider the creator to be god or evolution.

But they have been fooled, into blind belief that what is immoral for you, is moral for others.

There are only two consistent moral positions. Initiation of aggression is right for all, ie nihilism. Aggression is right for none, ie voluntarysim.

Anything else people will always subconsciously or consciously know is bullshit. Knowing this, they will give lip service to the collective while acting for themselves.

Nihilism is consistent, but results in just as much conflict, if more honest conflict.

Voluntaryism is consistent, but doesn't result in conflict. We know this because the vast majority of our interactions are voluntary and do not result in conflict.

Your assertion of inevitability of a ruling gang has empirical merit only to the extent some gang always claims this position, but these claims have vastly varying scope between regimes.

We don't deny these gangs almost always exist, but as well some have had very small temporal claims. The US being an obvious example in the first 50 years or so of it's existence. So it's not implausible that further progress could be made in this regard.

And again one must wonder: why so h8 at the idea? If you believe as Hobbes or Nitche why would you be offended if some deluded fools go chasing rainbows?