An excerpt from the new free book 'Practical Anarchy' by Stefan Molyneux, the second book in the series.

You can download it for free here: http://freedomainradio.com/free/

Page 33:
 
When it comes to government as it is – and all that government ever could be – we are never really
talking about two sides of the table. You get a letter in the mail informing you that your property
taxes are going to increase 5% – there is no negotiation; no one offers you an alternative; your
opinion is not consulted beforehand, and your approval is not required afterwards, because if you
do not pay the increased tax, you will, after a fairly lengthy sequence of letters and phone calls, end
up without a house.

It is certainly true that your local cable company may also send you a notice that they’re going to
increase their charges by 5%, but that is still a negotiation! You can switch to satellite, or give up on
cable and rent DVDs of movies or television shows, or reduce some of the extra features that you
have, or just decide to get rid of your television and read and talk instead.

None of these options are available with the government – with the government, you either pay
them, give up your house, go to jail, or move to some other country, where the exact same process
will start all over again.

Can you imagine getting this letter from your cable company?
 
Dear Valued Customer:

Your cable bill is now increasing 5% per month. You cannot cancel your cable. Ever. You cannot reduce
your bill in any way. If you turn off your cable, your bill will remain exactly the same. If you rip your
cable out of the wall, your bill will remain exactly the same, with the exception that we will charge you
for the damage. Your children will be unable to cancel your cable contract.

Also, please note that we will be reducing our delivery of channels by approximately 1 every month. As
we deliver fewer channels, you can anticipate that your bill will sharply increase.

If you do not pay your bill on time, the ownership of your house will revert to us, and we will lock you
in an undisclosed location, where you will be forced to do tech support, and where we will be unable to
protect you from assault and rape.

If you attempt to defend yourself when we come to take your house, we are fully authorized to gun you
down.

Sincerely,

The Statist Cable Company
 
We would consider this kind of letter to be utterly criminal – and we would be outraged at the
dictatorial one-sidedness of the letter, as well as the threats of violence it contained.

Unfortunately, this is exactly the kind of communication that we get from our governments all the
time – and in many ways, it is not unrelated to the kind of non-negotiated dictums that we received
from our teachers when we were children.

I like many of Stefan's ideas, but he is a bit too corporate friendly for my tastes.
Like his description of DRO's were interesting until the point where if you wanted to live by yourself, of the grid, you were sort of automatically regarded as a criminal, just because you weren't associated with a DRO.
I think that it's not really freedom if you can't chose to be free from the DRO system as well.
Granted, if you, say, travel on a private train without paying, for example, the system could be set up so that the act of getting on the train means you signed the contract to pay the fee, or else, their DRO would sort things out. That way you don't really have to have one yourself, unless you want to, because the benefits are good.

And I don't like the idea of any big organisation controlling things.
Companies, and even corporations are OK given that monopoly is banned and automatically discouraged, and that we get rid of the whole "limited responsibility" of a corporation, because, as we have seen, that will be misused for evil.

But the whole stateless society is an awesome idea, and order and benefits through selfishness is clever, since humans are selfish.
And not having a state does not mean not having rules and principles, either.
When I was in the forest, I thought about this, and most things in nature is in a state of anarchy.
A bush offers nice, juicy berries to the birds and beasts, who feed on them, but the bush hides it's seed in the berries as well, so the animal carries it away, a long way, and later dumps it on the ground together with a whole bunch of nutrients.
There is a mutually agreed contract between the shark and a little fish that cleans it's teeth.
The shark wants his teeth cleaned, and the little fish wants some dinner, so the shark lets the fish eat from it's mouth in exchange for not swallowing it.
Nature has it's laws, and seem to work out just fine without intervention from some central authority.

Can I ask what the DRO means?

The DRO system have been used before and worked quite well.
If you read the bible, book of Judges, you see that Israel had no king or government in the early days, but instead had a bunch of judges that resolved the various disputes according to the law, and it worked out really well.
Later on, envious of the other tribes, the too wanted a king, upon which god warned them in a speech worthy of any liberalist about the cons of having a king/state.
So, the concept is tried and true, but he makes if seem like a mandatory replacement for a state or something.
I would prefer it if it was just "on demand" like the judges.

How many people watch day time television?

About the only people I can think of are desperately needing a life or old folks on the last ravages of life.

We have to pay a fee if we own a TV here, to support the state's TV channels, even if we don't want to watch them.
That's one of the things that got me thinking about this whole idea.
I didn't want to pay for something I didn't want to watch.
Granted, I stopped watching entirely, but that's not the point, the point is that if I wanted to watch any other channel, I ought to be able to do so without paying anything to the state.