This post stems from my post from yesterday. I recommend reading it for some more context: The most powerful argument for libertarianism and anarchism.
The following line of thought was the result of trying to answer the question: how would caring for the misfortunate work in a fully voluntary society? So here is my attempt to answer this question. Let me know if you have comments or suggestions!
Any system produces 'victims', so to speak. However, libertarianism isn't a system. It's total freedom. In a libertarian society nothing is forced, so in this case I don't think you can speak of "the system producing victims". But of course you're totally right in that there would be poverty, equality, etc., just like it exists now.
The existence of poverty isn't an excuse for the existance of the state. There is no guarantee there will be no poverty when a state exercises its violent control over a certain territory (because that's the essential task of a state). For example, in places where the state isn't as big, it's possible to see much poverty (e.g. in rural parts of Central America), or very little poverty (e.g. Switzerland, Liechtenstein and Hong Kong).
So, my guess is that one thinks of a state that provides social programs to its citizens. For example, here in the Netherlands we have welfare for the poor, the ill and the old. So the question is: is it possible to replace social welfare programs when people can't be forced to fund them?
My answer to this question comes in two parts:First of all, there is no way to accurately predict what people will do when they aren't forced to do anything, as I point out in my article. Asking whether a society will work without coercion is like asking if plantations will work without slavery. Besides, who will determine what the definition of work is? When are people provided so-called basic necessities? Everybody has a different living st...