You don't have to argue for the complete redistribution of wealth. You may only charter a government in your belief in a middle ground where the government ONLY makes sure people don't live in death traps, but once you grant said government the monopoly use of force, you get all that comes along with it, even if said…

No, I understand its not an attack. Its a tough question. I have not yet been able to answer that one.

I don;t know what you mean by "People." Thats a fictional term made up by tyrants.

I pay them. You know what they say…It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.

no form of society is perfect. I'll take possession of the evils perpetrated by corporations if you take the evils perpetrated by governments. let's see…some residents killed in new york slums…vs Stalin killing 20 million. Hmmm….

"If so- at what point does such an arrangement become a state?"

Society could be self-organizing. There is no reason to think it must be organized by SOMEONE, just like there is no reason to think the universe need be created by SOMEONE.

There would be a multiplicity of entities that would provide protective services. A private entity could TRY to form an effective monopoly of force, but they would have to deal with many, many protective services that would be aiming to stop that.

I don't know many run of the mill consumers that bought credit default swaps. I know a lot of rich people and wealthy financial organizations that bought credit default swaps…and then were bailed out by the government with taxpayers money rather than sent to bankruptcy court, which is what the free market would have…

"Absent any regulatory agencies, there would be no profit to be made in attempting to create businesses to perform the function of the now-absent regulatory agencies."

I am arguing that the government should not exist. Anything a government can provide can be provided better via voluntary exchange.

Then lets just have one rule: no monopoly on the use of force. I say no entity is allowed to assert that right. That, after all, is what corporations are buying: access to the monopoly use of force.

"There is no profit motive attached to regulation." Comically incorrect, Most regulation is typically written by some horrific amalgamation of corporations, lobbyists, and politicians that ends up simply being subterfuge to prevent competition and thus solidify unearned profits.

whats to prevent the government from using every trick they've been wishing they could use to funnel all the money to themselves? oh, wait… thats what government actually does.

Nope. I want less impunity. Which is why I want complete deregulation. Government can be bought, which means corporations can buy their impunity. No government, no impunity to buy.

It is an argument for no government, and I'm philosophically an anarchist, so I probably should have just said that from the get-go.

I blanch at the notion of raising taxes to compensate for debt because it won't help. To a government willing to outspend its income at an ever increasing rate, how much income is enough?

a strong private sector keeps the state in check? The government keeps private predators in check? In what universe? The government does not keep private predators in check. It either IS the predator (Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc), OR it allows the predators to operate with impunity (Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, Lehman…

no, you are right. the fact that the funding for the program is coerced is the reason we should abolish it.

The progressive philosophy is surely not defined only by the revenue side of the ledger. In fact, considering government's innate ability to avoid sound fiscal action, I would be far more likely to rank the states in terms of progressivism by the amount of goodies their government feels itself willing to pass out.