>The anarcho-capitalist position doesn't define markets particularly rigidly at all. "voluntary exchange" is pretty much it. Then what about the exchange betwe

>The anarcho-capitalist position doesn't define markets particularly rigidly at all. "voluntary exchange" is pretty much it. Then what about the exchange between the organization we call a State and the people? For example: I am more than happy to exchange my freedom to commit violence and for others to commit violence against me in the course of doing business to a heavily regulated monopoly (the State) that is ultimately controlled by the people that constitute that State. That is one less worry I have with every other interaction I have in my life -- violence has been taken off the table except in the case of rules that I've agreed to live by. Seems like a very fair trade to me. I have already volunteered for that exchange. Or how about the agreement that I pool my money with people from all different industries and backgrounds into a fund that we all decide to spend through our representatives that we've voted to appoint? This tends to mean that pool of money is used for the common benefit. I'm happy with that situation as well. It creates a collective power that would be hard to match in any less comprehensive scheme, and some problems call for that approach. In short, I've agreed to exchange time and effort and some freedom of action (that I will never miss) to participate in a system that I think works and works well. This system does not use solely currency as a means for exchange but votes and persuasion. Granted, currency can be spent to nudge votes this way or that but there is no direct exchange. I believe this is the right way to go and that not everything needs to be translated into exchanges of currency which, really, is the heart of my disagreement with anarcho-capitalism. Not everything must be exchangeable with currency. In fact, some things should be impossible to exchange, directly, with currency. >Where they can't, there isn't - at the end of the day - any way I can see to prevent someone from using superior force to vanquish someone who possesses less strength. But that doesn't mean that we should institutionalize the use of force as a routine part of how we conduct business with each other. Violence exists. The best we can do is manage it. Do you not see the contradiction that you would allow freedom of all associations except the one society's currently agreed on?