You have a strange conception of the state's role in production.
To be more exact, you're conflating property and rights protection (law and police) and dispute resolution (courts) with the state.
But you don't need the state to provide any of those things. Law can be crowd-source or agreement based, ie: polycentric-law. No societal entity needs to have a monopoly on law production, that's just the way things have been largely until now. There's no reason for it to stay that way, and an alternative may (and probably will) be far better.
Similarly, courts and police can be privately provided on the market and due to changed incentives of the market will probably be far better.
Stateless communities often also had no rights protection, law, or courts. But it's possible to create not a state nor a stateless community, but rather the ideal is a self-governed community, and by that I mean one where each individual rules himself and himself alone. Not a community which uses a collective body to govern the whole--no, I mean a community where each individual has sovereign control of himself and no one else. A truly individualist society. This has never existed because we never had the ideas explicit to try it until modern time.
You are a dreamer. This is science fiction, written by austrian aristocrats. I know these theories very well, and in my former life I was an Austrian as well, until I realised that it is ahistoric science fiction. Real stateless communities in the rain forests 'produce' about the same amount as they did 10'000 years ago.[/quote]
They don't have advanced specialization or any concept of capital investment. Of course they produce little to nothing. What relevance does that have, at all, to what I'm talking about here. Correlation is not causation. I'm not talking about a stateless society, I'm talking about a society where every-person is their own state, their own sovereign. It's a subtle difference but try to catch the rub. Stateless clans in rainforests typically operate in a form of savage socialism--not extreme political individualism such as I suggest. They are virtually opposite situations.
Governed, collectivist societies produce about hundred fold the amount which was generated only 100 years ago.
No, we've had governed, collectivist societies for literally thousands of years and they never produced what we have now. It was economic individualism that produced the modern world, not government action on society as you seem to suggest. Name a place more governed than ancient Egypt or China--these places didn't produce highly.
That's the difference, which the dreamers suppress.
Deny is a better term. I don't think you know your economic history.
As I explained in another thread already: Any society is by definition collectivist.
That's far too general a statement. A society is collectivist when it holds that the group must be put before the individual. A society is individualist when it holds that the individual's rights can stand against group desires.
A society is either or, it is not innately either. Rights protections are innately individualist, for instance.
The opposite of society and collectivism is the self-sufficient community.
False. You've stated one of the common misconceptions about anarchy. Anarchy is not against cooperation, it is against
compulsory cooperation. Thus anarchy is not against division of labor and cooperation in terms of companies, it's against being forced to work with X and the like.
The rest of your quote is useless to respond to since it's predicated on this misunderstanding, so I'll ignore it.
