The state is very precisely defined as a legal monopoly of the use of violence against a group of people. The question one has to ask before all else is .. is the use of violence immoral? If it is immoral, a vast majority of people will turn their back on violence, and the only way they can act on that feeling is if they can choose. That means free market in "governments" .. and because people do not want to be associated with violence if they can avoid it, they will choose the lesser violent of the possible government-like institutions that will appear on a competitive market. The use of violence will dwindle down and power will dissolve into a decentralized hierarchy of authority and knowhow. This means, there is no taxbase to take over or anywhere to attack a "country" (useless term in this situation). if there is a market for protection against aggression, it will be provided by the market. It is incomprehensible to me that for some areas, people seem to have no clue that the free market will jump in to solve problems. It is the guns that is the state. lower the guns, and there is only free interaction left. the state is only an illusion in peoples head and the effects these peoples actions have on their surroundings. The most dangerous superstition ever !!