>>41
Who is talking about rulership? If the majority want something then that's fine but just let them pay for it. If they want universal healthcare, education, or other similar programs then that's fine, let them pay for it and not diffuse the costs over the minority who doesn't want it.
When the majority find that they have to put more money where their mouth is to support these things then less of them will be willing to support positive liberty and instead support negative liberty.
>>43
I never claimed that there wouldn't be force/coercion(subjective) at all all i said was that your "solution" to reduce conflict is inferior to a stateless society's form of dealing with this specifically a free market based one.
Statism is not logical because it assumes legitimacy over land that it cannot rightfully claim under most basic property rights, i know property rights are subjective but it doesn't seem logical to claim so much land that is not being used. When your philosophy is based upon an illogical premise like that then it does not matter what the benefits or consequences might be the fact of the matter is that it does not have legitimacy. We dont need a state, all the things provided in a state can be provided in a stateless society its just a matter of you not subsidizing the costs with democracy.