RE: Honey Nazis
I think the distinction between coerciveness (government) and contractual obligation(s) (voluntary association) is pretty muddy in your view.
The distinct difference comes down to voluntarily agreed upon, or not.
In the case of government, nothing is voluntarily agreed upon. You either obey, or get locked in a cage.
On the other hand, you and I, in a free market, have the ability to do business together if we so choose. If you or I end up not holding up our end of the bargain (the contract we both agreed to), the 'force' used to make the other whole is not immoral or un-just, but a last resort to rectify potential fraud.
I do think that a free market also coerces you into doing many things like somehow making a living.
You would have a much better chance at success living in the woods and not making a living in a free market society than one with a ruling class. Just go try and live in the woods and build a home, hunt, collect water, etc, without any permits or paying any taxes. I'll send you my # on discord so you can use me as your one call from jail ;)
And if we have just the market, who would exert that force regardless of its morality. How would the market stop me from not holding up my end of the deal? Let's talk about practicality and realistic feasibility. If you say what you are proposing is not an utopia, than you probably believe it's feasible. Why? How? Those are the questions I don't see answers to and because of those questions I remain unconvinced.
If someone convinced you that communism with unlimited resources for everybody and unlimited freedom with everybody where everybody does exactly as they please voluntarily and where everybody is happy would be moral, would that make it feasible? No, it's still an utopia. You could say it would be moral by definition, but the fact that one has defined it as moral does not make it possible.
If you want to defend the point that the free market can provide everything, explain the mechanisms that would enable it to do so, not why it would be morally superior. I'm not saying it wouldn't be preferable if it were possible. I'm saying it can't work. Remember, you asked me what problems the market can't fix. That's a practical thing, not a thing about morality.
Would you really? In a 100% free society what would stop me from coming to the woods and killing you and taking everything you've built to myself? The market? How?
Before we go down the road of how will this and that work absent govt, let's both conclude that we own ourselves. Can we do that? Let's assume we can...
Imagine all the ways we handle these types of scenarios now, but instead of them being run by gov't funded through taxation, you get to decide what company you do business with should something like this ever happen to you.
For example, I want to sell a parcel of land, and you want to buy it. We agree on a price and agree on Tom's Mediation Services to settle any disputes should we have any. Tom's Mediation Services employs John's Security Outfit, which goes after people who reneg on contracts.
Should either of us default, these two companies would be in charge of settling the matter.
2 things would stop you from doing these things.
#1, similar to why (I assume) you're not one of those Steemians replying incessantly with follow4follow, or upvote me pls, or any spam comment in general, is because you have your reputation to uphold. You wouldn't be at a 56 if you did those things. Your rep here tells me that you have provided other Steemians with valuable content. Same goes in the real world, being a dick and an asshole doesn't get you very far...such as coming into my home and trying to kill me and take all my things. How many people would be willing to do business with you in the future?
#2 If I am going to give any credit to the "founding fathers", it's that they knew the people should be armed. With our current govt, or absent one, you must have some big cajones to assume that when you come onto MY property intending to kill me, that I won't pump your ass full of lead. Merry Christmas ya filthy animal.
Now, assuming you don't care about your rep and you have nothing to live for, with gov or not, that really doesn't make a difference then, does it?
Do some research on Dispute Resolution Organizations. Lots of good theories about how they would more effectively and efficiently protect us from everything from things like breach of contract and theft to assault and murder. The incentives for these relationships to work well would be strong in a free market scenario. These incentives are all but nonexistent in the current system. Best of all is that if the one you go with fails to live up to your expectations you could fire them and get a different DRO to represent your interests.
I have read about those ideas, but so far I have not been convinced that the incentives are actually there. If you can tell me something more specific, I might be swayed, but just like that all I can do is reject your assertion and share the fact that I'm currently convinced you are incorrect.