That was a good debate. I tend to lean on the side of Anarchy myself, but TJ, you did have some valid concerns about how people will behave if they are not, in some ways, coerced into behaving according to a given standard.
But there is also the idea that a lot of problematic behavior, greed at the cost of others, violence etc. are systemic in nature i.e. the system propagates conditions that again force certain behaviors and violence in groups of people who have a lack (from a socio-economic perspective),and are not able to use the lawful means of the system to help them with their disadvantage. Would one steal a loaf of bread, if all bread was public property to begin with? Does anyone steal water from public fountains? The 'necessity'of stealing something happens when one doesn't have, and not having is a problem of public/private property, which in turn is regulated by a governing authority that has decided who can have and who cant. In modern capitalist society, the governing authority has decided that someone who has more than he needs, has a right to acquire more, while someone who began with very little or nothing, does not find it easy to lawfully acquire.
Capitalism and democracy now are symbiotic entities. How would you win an election if you dont have funding, and who has more power to fund than capitalists? It's the military-industrial complex that handles the ruse of democracy.
Like Marx said, "The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie."
RE: "STATISM" ( @tjkirk ) VS. ANARCHISM ( @adamkokesh )