Try new bait. Try reading and addressing or refuting some of the many resources provided. Try something.
I'm not really interested in baiting. I'm interested in how your proffered paradigm addresses the fundamentals of your grievances against the current system: How to resolve/arbitrate differences of opinion as to what is a right and who/what is entitled to those rights, when two groups disagree and will not cede nor compromise.
Methinks those upset with the current system would do well to read some Lincoln. Specifically, his second inaugural address where he said, speaking of the Union and the Confederacy:
"Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces; but let us judge not that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered; that of neither has been answered fully."
Most of what you and I and others here view as gross infringements of our rights, large numbers of our fellow countrymen view as necessary protections of their own rights. Obviously, we disagree with them most strongly. We believe with all sincerity and honesty that we are correct and they are wrong. We point to history, logic, our Constitution, and our DoI. Our fellow citizens do likewise.
Changing the form of government, or even eliminating government altogether and trying some form of a "stateless" society, does not remove these deep and dividing differences in our views. If we are to live together in (relative) peace, those differences have to be arbitrated. And as stealthy's answer finally makes clear, anarchy can no more avoid force than can our current system....except perhaps as protection agencies or non-government service providers might cover smaller areas and thus avoid certain national level conflicts....for a time.
Now, if what you really want is to get rid of the feds so you can shoot the first blankety-blank yank/urbanite/democrat/liberal who shows up to take part of your paycheck or to force you to bake a wedding cake contrary to your views; or to shoot the first redneck/republican/conservative crazy who tries to restrict your access to pot or an abortion, I can fully understand the desire. I just don't think we've seen any evidence nor logic to suggest that anarchy can lay a higher moral claim to resolving disputes without force than what our current system does.
In fact, I think a renewed respect for federalism--increased tolerance for diversity of culture and laws among the several States--within our current Constitutional system offers much greater hope for reducing conflict than does anarchy. Physical separation greatly reduces friction. But that is another discussion.
Charles
