(This article was originally written on Minds.com and is being re-posted onto this site.)
Whenever I engage in a discussion about society and how people could live in a Voluntarist society, I'm often met with resistance to the concept. Going into the discussion, I understand that I'm talking to individuals who are in favor of government and the services they provide. It's understandable that there would be some reluctance to accepting the idea that people could live without government intervention, since none of us have ever lived in a place where there wasn't a body of governance reigning over its people.
What I do find regrettable about these discussions is the utter dismissal of a Voluntarist society by stating that, "People couldn't possibly live in that kind of society because people will always be inclined to do immoral and irresponsible things. That's why we need a government in place to protect us against individuals who do those things." In one, fell swoop, they write off the entirety of the human race as being irresponsible, shitty people at heart and that there's not a chance that people could ever function without a government in place.
What is being argued through that statement is that the exception, people are capable of doing immoral or irresponsible things, must become the rule and that we should all accept that people are likely to be terrible because of the actions of some. This is something that could never be accepted as rational, if it were to be applied to anything else. If someone were to say, "Canadians shouldn't be allowed to become lumberjacks because some Canadian lumberjacks use their axes incorrectly and that resulted in the deaths or injuries of others around them," no one would take that argument or the person saying it seriously.
In arguing for a Voluntarist society, no one in their right mind paints it as some utopian place where crime has gone the way of the dinosaur, there's no poverty, and there could never be a shortage of goods. Voluntarist societies strive to streamline services and the provision of goods to the people in a way where it is inexpensive, it's quick, and it's of high-quality. There will always be people out there who want to be irresponsible and immoral, but that doesn't mean that we should accept the way our society is now because "it's the best system we've got".
Voluntarism can't promise that crime or irresponsible behavior will be eradicated from its society, no society could ever possibly promise that and deliver on it. What it does promise is to minimalize the possibility of and the damage done by those behaviors, as well as to adequately compensate those who have suffered losses and damages from it. This is something that is lacking in the current political system, as it's version of justice is to incarcerate individuals who commit crime and rely on the taxpayers to pay for it.
If we only focus on the bad parts of humanity, the habits and acts that are learned from their environment and upbringing, and neglect the fact that most of us carry on as morally-good, ethical, and peaceful individuals, then humanity cannot progress past the state that it's in today. The system in place has been shown to be inadequate to prevent crime and to provide actual, long-term help for those in need of it. Rather than promote the general well-being and prosperity of the majority of society, most would rather promote the subsidization of people who have been made to be incapable of improving upon their own wealth, all at the expense of everyone in the country and for future generations to come.
Voluntarism isn't about creating a utopia or an "anything goes" society that would excuse crime, immorality, poor ethics, and irresponsibility. It's about creating a society that would improve upon services that the current system has in place and creating better solutions to the problems that government continuously fails to solve. The only difference between that and what government-supporters advocate for is the fact that government wouldn't be involved in the process.