If you get rid of the whole thing altogether you guarantee that might & whim will rule over right & reason
This is an unsubstantiated, speculative claim. However, to allow open seats of power based on favors, family, and majority opinion (what government is now) and not based on sound private property grundnorms, results in what we have now:
Might and whim ruling over right and reason.
You have made no argument showing how ISO-based grundnorms result in this description. The description you make applies much more accurately to government than the lack thereof.
It is also critical to remember that voluntaryists are not against governance, but coercive, non-voluntary government violence.
I’ve backed up the claim. How do you propose to use reason to resolve a dispute among neighbors when they have different ideas about what does and does not constitute aggression?
If your neighbor steals your intellectual property and he doesn’t believe it is property (and can’t be convinced that it is) the use of force (might) is the only way to settle it.
The same applies in the case of an abortion where one party believes there’s been a murder and the other party doesn’t. There’s no way to mediate such a dispute. Again, might would rule over reason.
How is this done now?
You are saying since people disagree, it is better just to stick with a system based on theft and murder, than to have courts and other such organizations in a system based on private property?
That’s an insane and dangerous perspective.
You haven’t answered my question, but I’ll answer yours.
A proper government needn’t be funded through theft.
Now, care to address how a voluntary system would address the problems I presented via right & reason instead of might & whim?