RE: "STATISM" ( @tjkirk ) VS. ANARCHISM ( @adamkokesh )
It may be of benefit to clarify that voluntary organisations are by definition not a small government going by the Weberian political science definition of the state which is 'a monopoly on the initiation of force within a given geographic region' meaning that not every organisation is a small government, free market enterprises for example if non coercive aren't governments by definition.
'There will always be a hierarchy structure in society. '
As far as i am aware anarcho capitalism/voluntarism is not advocating for lack of hierarchy, simply hierarchies based on competence (the best in a field at the top of a company for example) and not domination or violence.
'Once you have a group of people, access to resources and the need of allocate these resources, there will be conflicts'
Why do resources need to be allocated?
The idea is that the free market is better able to meet everybody's needs through private property rights and voluntary contracts than forcible allocation. (Ludvig Von Mises is good for this)
'The more entropy we have in society the more the need for order will give raise to some form of government. Its biology, physics and psychology - they all point to simple systems merging to create more complex systems... its just how entropy works - and it works on everything.'
Some would argue that the state being a monopoly of force puts it in the category of chaos whereas anarcho capitalism would be voluntary or spontaneous self order/organisation.
Some would define the initiation of force as violence which is chaos, order could be defined as living in accordance with natural law, which would be voluntarism.
You could define the libertarian left's rejection of hierarchy to be chaos however.
have you ever not cared about how competent or successful someone was; you just hated their guts because you know they are a horrible human being? if the answer is yes, then you can see how merit based system will yield to social conflicts and how anarco-capitalism will eventually become regular runaway capitalism in the hands of popular and charismatic people as oppose to competent volunteers. Human emotion is far more powerful than any logical system - by pointing to our flawed human nature I can recognize why we do need a higher system of governance. We simply cant contain our righteousness and emotional urges... I'd like to think that everyone can offer something useful to the table and be compensated on the merit of their output alone, but even with STEEM, the game is social interaction and status more than content quality - how do you even measure the quality of content without being able to compare it with all the rest of the content? you are far more likely to upvote someone you care about and have some emotional connection with, than simply good content of a stranger. Am i wrong?
But even if I entertain the possibility of a society where quality of output is the only factor of human worth, then you are up to some crazy anxiety ridden society - trying to outperform each other in every aspect, it might seem voluntary - but its not, its just pressure from a different direction.
'Human emotion is far more powerful than any logical system - by pointing to our flawed human nature I can recognize why we do need a higher system of governance. '
Does it have to be a system based on coercive taxation? What if the same infrastructure and services could be provided by a voluntary fee? If people need these services wouldn't they pay for them?
As an aside what you wrote there i would argue is an argument against government, if we're crazy and anxiety ridden wouldn't a centralised coercive monopoly with the ability to kill at will be a dangerous attractant for the craziest and most sociopathic elements in society?
I generally think that taxation is a good thing if we can have a voice about where taxes go. I think my biggest objection to the current taxation system is that it is spent inefficiently, and has too many favorable loopholes for huge corporations (that don't hold the interest of the public as far as well-being goes). But over all, i think that if you have a government, that is functioning as democratically as possible, then it has to be funded by taxation - because ideally paying taxes should also give you a voice in the government. That in my view is the most balanced scenario.