I get that this book is trying to provide a quick overview, but some of the arguments seem to fall flat: > To put it another way, warlords already did take ove

I get that this book is trying to provide a quick overview, but some of the arguments seem to fall flat: > To put it another way, warlords already did take over, called themselves "government," and convinced their victims that it was righteous and necessary for the warlords to dominate and exploit everyone else, "for their own good." How do we prevent that from happening again? Sure, we can live in a voluntaryist society for a bit, but what prevents one of the voluntary support structures in that society from deciding to become involuntary? (Hasn't the history of basically all social organizations of all flavors - right-wing revolutions, left-wing revolutions, religions, corporations, HOAs, fraternities, romantic relationships - shown that they're all susceptible in their own ways to the people who have been voluntarily given power deciding to hold onto it without consent?) I don't mean this in the "human nature shows that ___ never works" sense - I mean this in the sense that I expect this to be a solvable problem. What sort of structure (perhaps voluntary, perhaps involuntary) can prevent a more malignant involuntary structure from taking over? > This is why the presence of government drastically increases the chances of people getting robbed—in fact, increases the chances to 100%, since every government "taxes" the people it pretends to "represent." This is technically true, but I'm not sure it's a helpful framing. Currently I owe, let's say, 40% of my income on paper to the government (not counting sales taxes etc.). I still keep the other 60%. Sure, the government is "robbing" me of 40%, but they are empirically doing an effective job of preventing other robbers from taking the remaining 60%, through everything from beat cops to the FDIC. So there's a 100% chance of the first 40% being taken from me, and maybe at most a 1% chance of the remaining 60% being taken. Let's say the government goes away. Now I get 100% of my income on paper. (Let's ignore for the moment that much of not all of my employer's profitability depends on the existence of governments, and assume that somehow I'm paid the same.) But now all of that income is at risk from other sorts of miscreants, whether petty thieves or unregulated banks. If the risk of theft is more than 40.6%, I'm worse off, right? That is - this argument seems to rest on the idea that any taking of money from me without my enthusiastic consent is bad. But it's clearly not equally bad. Losing 40% of my money is better than losing 50%, and much better than losing 100%. What is the actual risk to my money? That is, can you convince me that living in a country with a 40% effective tax rate compared to a land with no taxes is a bad economic decision, and not just subjecting myself to a moral wrong?