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.
On the whole, I agree with your idea, something along these lines has likely already been taking place. But there are functions which simply can't be privatized or demonopolized, since duplicating some public institutions would be equal to creating another state inside or alongside the original one (that's what mafias are permanently trying to do). I think that would wreak havoc as it happens when organized crime is able to snatch some power from the state. In short, power demonopolized is no longer power, so what you say in essence amounts to abolishing the state...
Part of the whole point here is that power, as we know it, is wrong!
You should have the power to defend your rights to life, liberty, and property.
You shouldn't have the power to compel people to go along with your ideas. So, for example, you think everybody should abstain from alcohol. Great - persuade people instead of outlawing it, because nobody should have the power to outlaw it. It shouldn't be a matter of voting on who gets that power over everybody, because nobody should have it.
It's no good merely taking turns at tyranny. Tyranny has to be eliminated.