Are you unfamiliar with Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan?
No.
You are a part of a nation so that people do not exist in a state of constant war.
First of all, that isn't even Hobbes's argument. You're conflating the term "nation" with the term "state"
Secondly, Hobbes's claim is a completely unsubstantiated; it is nothing more than a baseless assertion made by Hobbes and all of his circle-jerking faux political philosopher followers.
This means that certain concessions must be made. In return, you are living in a system that benefits you in many ways. For instance, you have the rule of law to protect your property. How is that enforcement to be paid?
Let's think about that for a second. How does McDonald's pay you for the services they provide you? Surely, they wouldn't be able to cook burgers and fries and all the other jolly shit they do without forcefully extracting money from someone?
Every business operating in a free market pays for the goods it provides via user fees and other voluntary arrangements. There is no reason why government wouldn't be able to do the same. For example, a user fee on contracts would net more than enough money for the proper functions of government.
If we were to base it on your half-baked rant, it is only because the government is "stealing" your money to pay for it.
Do you know how I know my rant wasn't half-baked? Because you had no argument against it besides calling it "half-baked." Go back to the drawing board.
Hey, if you are so anti-government, why are you even living in a nation-state as you write this? Why not go off in the woods somewhere, make a fortune(with no one around to do business with) and then you can keep one hundred percent of everything?
You do realize that I am the one arguing that society has benefits because of its voluntary aspects whereas you are not, correct? You do realize that you are the one arguing that society only has benefits when everyone is having their rights violated by an unconstrained and thus all-powerful government, right?
And the fact that you equate three very different terms with each other - "government," "nation-state," and society - is so ignorant that it's literally laughable.
Of course, that could never happen because you have to be integrated, at least to some extent, with rules and laws and order.
I've been arguing for "rules and laws and order" this entire time, while you have been attacking it. Civilized society can only exist when everyone's rights are being enforced. You are arguing for an institution (all-powerful government) that legitimizes the initiation of aggression and thus the violation of everyone's rights.
