The following was a reply to @Woozle Hypertwin, at her asking about what could be a possible alternative to "States" and "governments" using force to compel others.
@Woozle Hypertwin When I reflect upon (and confirmed by observations) the nature of voluntary interactions, I see both parties interacting because they both see some mutual benefit for themselves; when violent/coercive interactions take place, only one party (the one using violence/force/coercion) benefits, leaving the coerced person much worse off. This to me suggests not only an ethical principle, but a principle for greater human-satisfaction/need-meeting; voluntary interactions are more competitive, because there is a net gain to be had by all parties.
Most of us spent our childhoods under domination/subjugation. This kind of treatment can lead to emotional scarring; since we were treated unfairly, sometimes we may wish to "hold the reigns of power" so that we will no longer be dominated/subjugated; I think this is the essence of politics. Many people, because they have lived lives under domination, all struggling to grasp/hold the means/institutions of domination, so that their needs, and those of their fellows can be met (cognitive dissonance created by those emotional scars makes it had to empathize with the unmet needs of others, as they seek to be their dominators, therefore they think that they are doing the 'good'; that the world would be better off if they were the ones possessing the means/institutions of coercion/domination, than if the 'other' team were to hold those reigns).
The political means, nay, any means of domination, is always a net loss for everyone. While the thief may rob the pharmacy and feel as though he is made better off by the theft; the theft leads to higher insurance premiums to all around, and/or it leads to a sever loss of that pharmacist to provide the medicines for the thieve's ailing mother... Though the consequences/repercussions make be far removed, and those costs externalized to many others, the world as a whole is less well off, in terms of the capacity of human-satisfaction/needs-meeting than if violence/coercion/expropriation had not occurred.
Because some of us have have been dominated/subjugated, we wish to transfer/externalize those buried emotional scars, upon others. I wonder that if the crux of the problem is a lack of empathy (a lack of self-empathy for one's own pains/unmet-needs, and a lack of empathy for the pain/unmet-needs of others), I wonder if the ultimate solution of these social problems might be solved by an increase in social-empathy. What if people, were to be more self-reflective regarding their own emotional/physical/social needs? What if the healing that could take by just a few people, in touch with what is most-human inside of themselves, living lives in authenticity/empathy with their feelings and needs, could begin the process of extending that empathy outward, helping to heal others? What if a cohort of children were then raised without parental or institutional, domination/subjugation? Could the world possibly be transformed by voluntary interactions and the healing of a cohort of children who feel no need to dominate/subjugate others, because they have never known domination or subjugation? Could the world be transformed by an understanding/connection with one's prior pains/emotional-scars, and begin a process in which no one wished to take over the means/institutions of domination, because they are to busy living lives of empathic connection to their own feelings/needs and are living in voluntary social arrangements with others?