I got to the end of the second link which was the Adam Kokesh audio book. This anti state argument is no good. It's idealistic. Kokesh talks all the time about freedom but a rat is free. What makes humans different from other animals? We have huge creative power and a history of ideas. In particular, we can understand principles of higher order within the universe. This is how we invent things. This is also why people believe in God. Even if you don't, you can still be tapping into the same universal ideas of principle. The state should never be God. In fact God (or some kind of higher principle and meaning) is the state which marks humans out from animals. I agree that governments clearly infringe on freedoms and use force but that's because the majority of people allow this to happen to an unacceptable level. These same people would still allow problems to occur if there was no government and the people presently in government would still be trying to monopolise power in other ways.
The modern day state came out of ideas in the Renaissance. In particular, read these quotes below from Nicholas of Cusa's De Concordant Catholica. Bear in mind that this is almost 600 years old so has some flaws but it's the founding principles of the modern day state. Cusa was one of the very few good guys trying to advance humanity. Before this era, it was the Dark Ages which, it seems, the vast majority of commenters on these topics are intent on taking us back to but then like most of the population, they fail to see what makes the human race human so they don't have the solution to take humans out of animal like behaviour which is the prime trap that governments use to enslave everyone. Also, they did not study history too well, otherwise they would have a better understanding about how people are moved from one cage to another without actually gaining the freedom Kokesh talks about.
"That all legislation is based on the natural law, and that all coercion must be brought about by the choice and consent of the subjects, since we are equally free by nature, and that jurisdictions that are created have no power from themselves, but only according to the laws and canons. This is a fine argument.
Therefore since all men are free by nature, every government that restrains its subjects from evils and uses the fear of punishment to orient their freedom towards the good, whether it consists of written laws or of a living law in the person of the prince, is constituted only by the agreement and consent of the subjects. For if by nature men are equally powerful and equally free, then the true and well-ordered authority of one who is a fellow and equal in power can only be established by the choice and consent of others, just as laws are established by consent.
A human society comes together by a general agreement in order to obey its kings. So in a truly well-ordered regime there ought to be an election of the ruler himself, by which the ruler is set up as the judge of those who choose him. Well-ordered and correct lordships and honours, then, are established by election, and so also are general judges established over those who elect them.
Now men, who from the beginning have been gifted with reason above all animals, which is a great advantage for the conservation of their fellowship and community, and for the end on account of which each one of them exists. Indeed, having come to understand what is necessary through rational discourse, they were moved by a natural instinct to unite with one another and, once they were living together, to construct villages and towns. And if man had not discovered the rules for preserving peace against the corrupt inclinations of many, union would not have been enough to save him. And it is for this reason that cities were established, in which the citizens are united, and there are laws to preserve that unity and agreement by the common consent of all, and there are also guardians over them all, with the power to do as much as is necessary for the public good.
By a law that was divine, most admirable, and bestowed by grace upon all, it was made known to men that community was greatly in their interest, and that they are therefore preserved by an order in which laws are established by the common consent of all, or at least of the wise and heroic, with the others' support.
For we see that man is a civil and political animal, and is naturally inclined to civilisation.
Now law ought to be made by all those who are to be bound by it, or by a majority in an election, because it is for the good of the community, and what affects all ought to be decided by all, and a common decision can only be reached by the consent of all, or of a majority. There can be no excuse for disobeying the laws when each has established the law for himself."
