Having a free society doesn't implicate on having no leaders or structured groups it just means that no leader shall be able to initiate force and any leadership should be forced on any individual that doesn't want their leadership, it means that if someone wants to live with their buddies on a socialist community they can, as long as they dont force it over anyone and that everyone is consenting with everything being made on it. You can try to convince them that its a bad idea and tell the reason why it will not work, but you can't force'em not to do it. If a structured central planned society is working better people will tend to want to live in one if the more free are working better people will move to them, you will have a free market of social organization and the less efficient will break and no one will use and the better ones will work better and... you got the idea, this way it will be even quicker to find out what works and progress, and this is only possible with the non agression principle, with no forced state, in a free society
Democratic leaders really produce better group members ? than why private services tend to have more skilled people and better quality and efficiency than govermment services ? Why every attempt of "democratic" central planning always fail ? And why less state always tends to generate better life conditions and quicker progress ? Why the best ideas and inventions were made voluntarly in a completely free manner ? Look at the computer you are using, or your cell phone this complex piece of technology that you probably have no idea of how is working was made voluntarily from people from all around the world there are components that were created in one side of the globe assembled in the other made by different people on different places and it all works together, with no govermment involved.
If you are interested on knowing how to achieve that society and etc i recommend reading this:
https://mises.org/library/new-liberty-libertarian-manifesto
and apply cryoticurrencies to this logic. i am thinking on writing a concise text about the matter of practical anarchy and agorism here, you can follow me if you are interested
Feel free to correct my grammar and make any objections, thanks
I agree that this is how it should be. But governments started out as leaders who got more and more followers and obtained more and more land. What will stop power-hungry people from forming another government?
To achieve a free society/a stateless society the people living on it need to have done it themselves and have a libertarian mindset(the new libertarian manifesto talks about achieving anarchy with your actions), i believe that they would not let something like this happen again because they will remember the tiranny of the state and all the bad things that come with it, and remember, there can be multiple govermments, there will be people who will prefer to live on a govermment, and its fine as long as there is consetiment of all the people involved on it, you can't say for example that an unborn child of a citzen of your govermment is bound to this govermment because his parents signed a contract, because they dont "own" the child, it has self property like any other human being, what they own is the right do guard and take care of the child (Rothbard talks about it on Chapter 14 of ethics of liberty: http://goo.gl/BCKDTg ).
Govermments can exist, but not states, only with time the existing govermments will start to fail and people will abandon the idea, or not, because govermments in a free society arent mandatory, you can leave them (unless you signed a contract saying you wont) so they become like any other private business and compete against each other on a free market, if they do something against your natural rights or against the contract you can sue'em on a private court or stop participating on it, they dont really have any stimulus to be tiranic, because there will be non tiranic organizations competing with them
These are all interesting points that I want to consider and weigh further. It does seem to me that we are sliding too easily into incomparables (if there is such a word) in some of our debates e.g. leadership vs innovation; enforcement vs state compulsion.
There are some brands of survival-of-the-fittest political organisation that are as dehumanising and violent as almost anything even bad states can throw at us.
The thing is that in a free society, there can only be violent and dehumanising organisations if people agree to live on them, and i really doubt this kind of political organization would really survive on a free society, the thing is that on a real free market bad ideas tend to die and only those who serve humanity survive because...people are not really willing to pay and negotiate with anyone that will do them harm, there can be scammers but they should not survive very long if you have an efficient justice system that only a free market can provide
Edit: about the "incomparables" boy you cant imagine the kind of correlations we can make talking about this, and sometimes this correlations DO mean causation