But I was just proposing an alternative for making people's life better without first dismantling state. Where did you get this as being the only choice if it was an alternative to another choice? It was exactly me who was deprived of this alternative in the first place as being non-existent. And now you say it is immoral. What is immoral actually?
It's not necessarily about dismantling the state.
The state, as it currently exists, provides certain services, principally protection. All we are saying is that for all of those services, people should be able to either continue to use the state or use other services that people provide in the market and not have to pay the state. That then allows people like yourself who want the state to continue to pay for it, and people like me who don't want the state to use other services instead.
Yes, exactly. I fully support the people around me continuing to keep their existing government if they choose, so long as that institution stops compelling everybody in this territory to be its citizens/subjects. They can keep their flag, national anthem, Congress, courts, Presidents, etc. They can keep their schools. They can even keep their wars. What they can't do, morally, in my opinion, is force everybody to belong to their "jurisdiction" simply because they live here. Other people within this region should be able to belong to other organizations with different courts, Presidents, etc., or even none at all and arranged differently (perhaps they want a king, as an example).