Maybe the problem is that there exists an organization which initiates the use of force to solve problems, which actually creates more problems than it solves.
"I needed the State’s protection to be a full human being."
Do you really need the state's protection, or do you just need protection in some form or another? I don't see why it is necessary that your protection come from some organization that forces you to pay for their services. Your argument that you need the state's protection could just as well be used to argue in favor of the criminal organizations you are so afraid of. If you were forced to pay for the mafia's services, would you need them too? I don't think so. There's no reason why your protection couldn't come from an organization that you chose to work with voluntarily.
I think it's the fact that there exists an organization with a monopoly on the initiation of force that is the problem. The structure of this organization matters a little less. That's why these sorts of problems happen with every government.
What the government has done in this case is criminal. But now we just have to hope that they prosecute themselves. If there were no monopoly on force, it would be possible to use a competing court system to prosecute.
Assuming bitcoin does need its crypto upgraded at some point, probably what will happen is some people with a good deal of bitcoin authority, like the "official" bitcoin developers at bitcoin.org, will upgrade the crypto, and everyone will follow them, because they can be trusted.
I believe the problem is credit cards. They shouldn't be able to suck money out of you each month. You should have to send them money each month. If you don't want the service any more, don't send them money.
He seems to advocate voluntary socialism. I'm an anarcho-capitalist, but I have sympathy for this view. The view that we all ought to interact voluntarily, without aggression or coercion, is called voluntaryism. I believe the only realistic way voluntaryism is going to work is anarcho-capitalism, but so long as you are in favor of voluntary interactions, we are on the same page.
It seemed like a perfectly reasonable book to me... I detected no "polemic brow beating". The point of the book is not to be a history of economic thought, but to be economics in one lesson. At that it succeeds. If you want to be an economist you will need to read more books.
$30 was obviously a bubble. But how can this article not even mention that in March, bitcoins had only just surpassed $1, and thus they are now trading at about 3x that? To pick the peak of a bubble as a reference and not even mention that even after the crash, bitcoin has still probably outperformed every other asset in the world YTD, is disingenuous.
Not to mention the price is irrelevant to the success of the technology. What about the economy? Is there more bitcoin economic activity now? My bet would be yes, since Silk Road has done nothing but grow, and it is the most useful bitcoin business.
> I'm not sure you've taken any time to think through the implications of what you've just suggested.
Why would you assume that? I've put enormous thought into this and read much literature on it. See Murray Rothbard, Stefan Molyneux, Lew Rockwell, Doug Casey, etc., and my twitter feed @ryandickherber.
> Who gets to decide which set of authorities gets used, the defendant or the prosecutor?
The person who is the victim of the crime will obviously go to the court of their choice. The defender, meanwhile, may choose a different court. The courts will have to decide on an arbitrator. Since they only have finite resources and their reputations are on the line, all parties have an interest in working this out, and so it will happen.
> What happens when two sets of authorities disagree?
There are no "authorities", but if two people disagree they will seek arbitration.
> What happens when officers from competing police departments try to arrest the same person?
Only one will get there first, so only one will be able to arrest the person.
> If an authority is corrupt (confiscates property, basically acts like the mob, etc.) how will they be enforced against?
Again, there are no "authorities". If some police or courts become aggressors, then obviously people have a right to defend themselves and will employ resources including other police and courts to do this. The existing police already are corrupt in many cases, but because they have a monopoly, people are just screwed. A free market would solve this problem.
> If these are free market forces, what happens when someone is unable to afford to enlist the help of an authority? Absolutely no rule of law for them?
Most people have some community resources they can access in time of need. If they have nothing at all, then they are screwed. But it's the same way under a monopoly of force.
Sure, I can tell you how I would think it would likely work, but of course people could be innovative and invent solutions that are better than what I envision.
Basically, if you are the victim of a crime, you wouldn't want to just seek justice yourself, because your community might think you are the aggressor, and then your reputation would be damaged. So you would go to a court and pay them to rule on the issue. You would pick a court with a good reputation, so that everyone knew you're not just trying to cheat. The court would then rule, and if you won, you would be justified in paying some police to seek justice. The police would also want to make sure you had first sought judgement from a good court, since they have to worry about their own reputation as well.
For instance, if someone stole something from you, you would bring your evidence to a court, and have them rule. If they rule in your favor, you could higher police to go retrieve your stolen property. Or if you are the victim of violence, you would follow the same procedure, and then be justified in having the aggressor locked up for a while. You'd probably want to have police/court insurance in case you are the victim of an expensive crime.
But voters don't really have any power if all they can do is vote for representatives every two years. This is basically meaningless. They would have much more power if they could choose which police they used, which courts they went to, etc.
I think it's a much better than a monopoly on force, which is a moral hazard that will always be abused. We'd be much better off with a free market of law enforcement and courts, like with anything else.