I'm still trying to figure out how getting rid of the state solves the problem without leaving a vaccuum for worse to fill it. Who stops Nestle from that kind of coersion without a state? Of course the state has failed to do it's job in allowing Nestle to go so far, but what could possibly stop a new state from forming out of corporations or organized crime in the absense of the state without a total redistribution of resources and (currently unrealistic) widespread agreement on a new way forward? I ask because I feel you and a lot of your ideological peers are decent and intelligent people but I've yet to be convinced.

I'm not sure if you remember but I'm the guy that wants to see us adopt a kind of peaceful coalition of experimental tribe-like communities , many of which have looser ideas of property and trade and contract, perhaps some with varied ideas like your own, a real variety of communities all interested in peaceful coexistance and consensus as an ideal. Of course I do realize this vision is equally hard to imagine playing out, but I think some form of a state provides the stability with which to eventually ensure that any entity like Nestle or Google or Tesla become something of a new state. Meanwhile those communities could develop on the sidelines of society. And of course that state would have to be vastly different from what we have now, it would have to have it's own deconstruction and the deconstruction of corporate controlled power set as a priority. A state whose main goal is to make itself obsolete.

I think a rise in "progressivism" and "Bernie-like" politicians with a devotion towards getting the money out of politics, not to mention a new non-partisan, non-corporate-funded media might be a step in the right direction simply because they would allow us to begin to push these conversations in the mainstream. The goal is also a no-state , but perhaps the road is a bit longer and more winded, but much more realistic, as far as I see.

I am intrigued by where you say "we need to change what we define as property" and where you start to go with that. I still haven't been able to imagine exactly what you propose happens to all that property that has been seized through coersion if you don't have a state? I feel this reply has become a bit roundabout, as I wasn't intending to write so much, but if you understand what I'm trying to say, please direct me to any post that adresses this or feel free to write a new one that answers these kinds of questions.

I only bring my questions to you cause I respect your opinions and sensibility, perhaps the most out of the voluntaryists I've come across, which is very few to be honest.