In my years discussing the possibility of a free society with statists (in other words, with pretty much everybody else), they have generally defaulted to the argument that since one or another horde would always invade a free society and impose its will upon it, that's the way it is, which is to say, the ultimate defense of the state is that initiated violence will always prevail over voluntary cooperation, so, in essence, accept the state as a fact of life and go about your life as best you can under its auspices.
Nice argument, i.e.,* immorality rules.*
It's what libertarian economist David Friedman (Milton's son) called a free society's "hard problem of national defense" — http://www.daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf — which he believed was insurmountable. Yet it was only a couple of weeks ago that, here on Steemit, the solution to the hardproblem was discussed — https://steemit.com/assassinationpolitics/@dollarvigilante/world-exclusive-first-interview-with-jim-bell-of-assassination-politics-since-released-from-jail — i.e., that a free society could defend itself by resorting to the ultimate mode of *asymmetric warfare" — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_warfare
And now, 21 years after this visionary's essay was published, the technology is in place and only awaits its "execution," with the understanding that the loss of life would be infinitesimal in comparison to that inflicted by the status — as in statist — quo and that the world could be transformed accordingly.
That said, let me close by pointing laconicflow to Larken's wonderful The Tiny Dot, which is a classic, in my opinion, as your video above will hopefully be.
Meanwhile, you both might glean something from the following:
https://steemit.com/anarchy/@freeradical/the-nature-and-origin-of-the-state
RE: Dissecting the Statist Mind