at first: thank you for your comments :)
What would be your personal take on these topics and in connection to psychopathy?
i think its one of the biggest lies from psychopaths that the we need governments ore that we need a force who rules about us. they want to convince us, that its right and good to exercise power about others but its not – it´s violence, its "sts" and it makes everything worse.
after all my inquiries i really think the best defence against those evil people is a voluntarism society. please look at my answer to laura – there are more details.
FF do seem to make really decent work imo. And do you know if FF and free domain radio (Stefan Molyneux) are connected, cause the two logos do look very similar?
FF is a german platform for voluntaristic issues. The owners translate many articles and videos, also from free domain radio. And political ponerology is not unknown. :)
Being one who formerly thought anarchism might be a way to go, I've since come to think quite differently simply as a result of working with people for the past 30 years, more intensively for the past 20 or so.
I think that you need to read this article and really think about it.
i read the article and I think about it, but I didn´t find an argument which really says that vonluntarism doesn´t work (I don´t like the term anarchism because many people think that means chaos, much more violence and so on – in fact this is a lie from the psychopathic – they don´t want to loose their power.).
yes, there are people who not have a mental structure, but how can that justify the subsistence of states? Voluntarism doesn´t means to replacing the old structures with nothing. It doesn´t means chaos ore something like that.
here´s another passage from the article „disproving the state - four arguments against government“ which can give one part of the answer:
The fourth option is that most people are good, and only a few are evil. This possibility is subject to the same problems outlined above, notably that evil people will always want to gain control over the State, in order to shield themselves from retaliation. This option changes the appearance of democracy, however: because the majority of people are good, evil power-seekers must lie to them in order to gain power, and then, after achieving public office, will immediately break faith and pursue their own corrupt agendas, enforcing their wills with the police and military. (This is the current situation in democracies, of course.) Thus the State remains the greatest prize to the most evil men, who will quickly gain control over its awesome power — and so the State cannot be permitted to exist in this scenario either.
It is clear, then, that there is no situation under which a State can logically be allowed to exist. The only possible justification for the existence of a State would be if the majority of men are evil, but all the power of the State is always and forever controlled by a minority of good men. This situation, while interesting theoretically, breaks down logically because:
[...]
Why is this error always made? There are a number of reasons, which can only be touched on here. The first is that the State introduces itself to children in the form of public school teachers who are considered moral authorities. Thus is the association of morality and authority with the State first made — which is reinforced through years of repetition. The second is that the State never teaches children about the root of its power — force — but instead pretends that it is just another social institution, like a business or a church or a charity. The third is that the prevalence of religion has always blinded men to the evils of the State — which is why the State has always been so interested in furthering the interests of churches.
[...]
It was mentioned at the beginning of this article that people generally make two errors when confronted with the idea of dissolving the State. The first is believing that the State is necessary because evil people exist. The second is the belief that, in the absence of a State, any social institutions which arise will inevitably take the place of the State. Thus, dispute resolution organizations (DRO's), insurance companies and private security forces are all considered potential cancers which will swell and overwhelm the body politic.
This view arises from the same error outlined above. If all social institutions are constantly trying to grow in power and enforce their wills on others, then by that very argument a centralized State cannot be allowed to exist. If it is an iron law that groups always try to gain power over other groups and individuals, then that power-lust will not end if one of them wins, but will spread across society until slavery is the norm. In other words, the only hope for individual freedom is for a proliferation of groups to exist, each with the power to harm each other, and so all afraid of each other, and more or less peaceable thereby.
It is very hard to understand the logic and intelligence of the argument that, in order to protect us from a group that might overpower us, we should support a group that has already overpowered us. It is similar to the statist argument regarding private monopolies — that citizens should create a State monopoly because they are afraid of monopolies. It does not take a keen vision to see through such nonsense.
[...]
and in fact the creating and using from the judicial system is not a part of the definition from states. judical systems has arisen through private initiatives and also the using was regulated privately (as example the english common law).
Please check out the information on this short video: definition of "the state": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTRIjUgqip4
in german: das ding namens „staat" - rechtssysteme entstanden privat : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Od4lIJzpVZg&feature=c4-overview-vl&list=PL1F79A3BDACABDADC
another example is ancient ireland as a stateless society (look at page 3 + 4): http://www.freiwilligfrei.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/stateless-societies-ancient-ireland.pdf
in german: voluntarismus in der geschichte? beispiel irland: http://www.freiwilligfrei.info/archives/75
and it´s another big fat lie that the root for iniquities is caused by concerns.
a free market is not a threat – it has never existed. in fact governments cause monopoles, price controls, bounties, bailouts, credit guarantees and so on. without the help from states most of the concerns would look old-fashioned. as example nuclear power would much more expensive then other forms of energy...
Voluntarism! 
