Now I have no interest in starting a debate about who is being ideological or closed minded, so please don't take anything I have said personally. I am arguing with the ideas, not with you as a person.
Dont worry I dont take anything in a bad way
This single statement implies some assumptions I reject. By saying it cannot be solved by a market you imply it must be solved by force. As such you have given up looking for market solutions and accepted the shortcut of force.... that the end (solving the free rider problem) justifies the means (government force).
I would like to be proved wrong because the state solution is faulty! The prevailing soultion is to have an agreement of as many people as possible (on questions like taxes (yes, no, how) etc.). And you are rigth there is force (mostly the thread of force) applied to those that dont agree. Most states exclude some unalienable rights from these agreements. But, and I think you agree, the process can be faulty (what is unalienable? Also the definitions of these unalienable rights can be bent) and with the non-unalienable rights rarely all will agree.
But the "state system" does deliver some things: It protects most rights which most people agree the be most valueable and those are (basically: see faults above + possibly corrupt law enforcement) granted to all individuals (if the state system if working right!) in the same way independent of the economic possibilities to afford these rights. There are a few more things but that is the core I would say.
A differnent solution would have to improve upon this system.
All I wanted to say is that any solution should be approached from the same neutral standpoint and dis- and advantages of any system should be taken seriously. This is the responsinility of any actor that can have an effect on peoples lives in an indirect way.
edit: I will read the article you suggested as soon as I find the time to.
The state doesn't protect rights, we do. You cannot put the responsibility on the state to do anything that you wouldn't be willing to do. The state is as flawed, as biased, as broken as everything else in society.
The state is good at coercion, killing massive amounts of people, propaganda, taxing people, and we all give to the state. To keep up the illusion that the state protects us, the state gives welfare benefits and other social programs so that people feel as if they need the state to live. This encourages inherent dependency on the state and people are raised to believe that the state is like a parent to them and their children. This is no different than the ruse that the church pulled in the past at the peak of it's power. Organized religion convinced people into thinking that the God was the father of man and Jesus the son of God, the father of the church was the father of society, that the man is the father of the household. This led to the divine right of kings and was used to encourage people into accepting the rule of man in place of the rule of God.
The ultimate centralization of authority resulted. The state was meant to be an evolution away from feudalism and the divine right of kings. It was founded upon certain principles designed to protect the liberty of the individual but it does not mean that the state is necessarily the most efficient protector of individual liberty.
I'll go on record and say I'm not very ideological. But I do agree that if you can solve societies problems in a way which does not require a concentration of power into the few, but which benefits everyone, then why use the state if you can do it in a better way?
I don't think every function of the state will be replaced. I do think a lot of the social programs can be done better than how the state is doing it, more efficiently, and that the solutions people developed over 100 years ago need competition from the private sector. I will admit that the private sector as it is today cannot solve problems such as poverty and that is why we have the state playing the role of Robin Hood. But the problem of poverty is sometimes exacerbated by the state which enforces artificial scarcity to maintain the status quo.
You can be a capitalist but if everyone does not have access to capitalism then you create poverty based on the fact that only people in certain clubs can access capitalism. How many people out there who are young, educated and American but they don't own any assets? They don't have stock, they don't have bonds, they don't have trust funds, they could get a loan for college but not a loan to start a business or to buy capital assets.
Why is it we are willing to give young people a loan to go to college but we wont give young people a loan to invest in dividend paying capital assets? Why are there artificial barriers to keep unsophisticated investors from being able to invest but they will let anyone buy a house or a car? Why is it so hard to get investment to start a business but so easy to go into debt getting degrees?
And that is just in the United States. In some other countries people young and old don't even have bank accounts. Who decides where investment goes? If we have crowd funding then we do, but if it's centralized then who decides? The central bank? So if there is a war then hundreds of billions or trillions get invested in that but not very much investment for solar or decentralized renewable energy generation?
The state is not going to change anything. Only the private sector can make changes in accordance to the will of the market participants. And I'm not saying that because I think the state can't be used, but because people have been trying to use the state for generations without much success but those people wont even consider trying a different approach. Use whatever approach works with the least amount of violence.
Bitshares does not require violence. The state does require violence. Violence is not in any of our self interest but many people choose to use it as the first resort which is bizarre to me. If you empower the state with the death penalty, or the ability to tax one group of people, who is to say that those powers wont be turned on your group of people in the next election?