Who will hand out IDs?

Since it’s none of the state’s business who I am, or where I go to/have been to, the state has nothing to do with handing out proof-of-Identification. To be able to enter my own home, unless I built a lock into my door, that worked that way.
Basically, every lock does, but carrying a mechanical or electrical key is enough evidence of identity for the vast majority of people, or typing a code into a key pad is.
So why would I not be allowed anywhere near my own home without a piece of paper or plastic with my photo+name on it? And why are those passports designed so dumbly? Because the old design for a passport, did not have a rigid plastic card built into them, so they were too easy to forge.
So nowadays, the owner (assuming that’s the person who’s picture+name is on it, not the government) can not reliably travel to another country with a passport.
Because the brittle plastic card in it (used to display your photo, name, date of birth, etc.) has a tendency to break when you sit on it, or whatever, making it harder for you to leave or get home, and since that is supposed to be the purpose of a passport, that is something the government fails at again, and this time, it isn’t even one of their permissable roles; it’s just an annoyance/hindrance, that serves no real purpose.

“But if you let just anybody into the country,”

Then what? Would you get upset if you lived in, say, Amsterdam, and the house next to yours got bought & inhabited by someone from the city of Deventer? Different city, different province, even! But because its the same country you suddenly don’t mind. But if those people moved out of the city of Bottrop, Germany, suddenly it is an issue worth getting upset about. Germany is a country immediately next to the Netherlands, they actually share a border. How is moving out of Germany different from moving out of Overijssel (the province where the city of Deventer is located)? Of course, people get really upset if it’s people from, say, Arabia or Africa, those are even worse than Germany (or Belgium, France, the UK – they Brexited the EU, proof they don’t even want to be our friends anymore!)

“They would use all sorts of government (taxpayer funded) services.”

So? Just abolish government / remove those services from the claws of government, where they don’t belong, anyway.

“Well, people from Overijssel pay the same taxes as we do.”
So, shared #victimhood is your criterion for acceptance? So Stockholm of you, dude!
I would get upset, if they started paying taxes here: more loot for the evil institution, that is against my interests.

What is the only legitimate purpose of an ID? Proof of identity when signing a contract, you don’t need a government registration for that!

Who will license drivers?

Since handing out driver’s licenses is clearly not one of government’s tasks, (driver’s licensing has little to do with owning the road), in a stateless society the only interested party would handle driver’s licensing: insurance companies. After all, if someone can’t drive, they probably cause lots of accidents costing the insurance company lots of money; causing them to demand proof of skill before they grant a driver’s license. (Translated from the official Dutch title, literally “evidence of driving skill”).
Hold on, one might say: wouldn’t a rich guy just drive without insurance and expevt to pay for any damages he causes out of pocket? (Perhaps injuring or killing people)
Well: in a stateless society the wealth would likely be distributed more evenly, because the opportunities to become rich would be equalized: there would be no ridiculous licensing requirements to open a business anywhere, no crony capitalism (see (1) below).
But apart from the fact that everybody would be more or less equally rich:
Some road owners (remember: businesses may run an access road to their business to get customers to be able to reach them), will refuse such drivers access to their roads, making their car useless, as well as harmless.
This is another balancing check to ensure that people actually pass driver’s exams before they go on a drive.
This will ensure sufficiently high standards for safe road conditions. And those standards will not be set ridiculously high, or nobody will pass their exams, meaning that THAT insurance company will not be able to sell car insurance, if only because nobody will try to buy it from THEM, they will seek out a different insurance company, that may have slightly higher rates because actually selling insurance would mean they occasionally have to pay out, raising costs, which will have to be paid by consumers.
This will see to it, that it will not be unduly difficult to pass a driving exam.

(1): this does not mean that in stateless society there would be heavy industry in rural housing communities, polluting the heck out of the neighbours: because, once again, interested parties (the neighbours), would object to having their interests harmed, by noisy, smelly petro-industry, noisy, hazardous big rigs driving to and fro, carrying heavy cargo.

In short, the current situation, where the government owns the roads and grants (ocasionally) driver’s licenses, is wrong on so many counts, that it is just another reason to embrace statelessness: the government does get a lot of its loot from taxing driving/car sales/ownership and not spending that money on building enough roads, but still they are not strongly incentivised to pass standards of decency on their monopolist driver’s licensing agency because being a totalitarian dictatorship, they can raise taxes on whatever they want, and still get their money from the citizenry.

While it’s  true that the Dutch CBR, Central Bureau for Driver’s Licensing (yes, comrsde, thst is its actual name), is a private business, they are not a true market operator, because they have a government monopoly, and follow government’s rules, so they are as close to a government agency as it gets, without strictly legally being one. Being the government that makes and changes the laws, has its perks.

I strongly feel that we need to popularize our

    I strongly feel that we need to popularize our message, by writing bestselling novels, making good movies, to prep the populace’s minds.

    Why am I confident that anarchist/minarchist literature (when done well) will reach a wide audience?

    Well, almost everyone I speak hates the government, they just don’t know how to get along without one yet.

    Plus: take the 5 Ps of marketing:

    1. Product
    2. Place
    3. Price
    4. Promotion
    5. Purple cow (anarchist lit has a very big purple cow factor, because it’s so outrageous)

    Purple cow means: you’re walking along a field with some friends, when you suddenly see a purple cow. That’s when you start prodding people: “Hey! Look at that cow there!” Anarchist literature has that in droves.

    So this P really means getting others to do the marketing for you.

    I feel we must emphasize the aspects of (legal) order without government / economic distress with/caused by government, not without government. And of course any other aspects that people still think they need government for: to protect us from (as if the government is willing to protect us from anything) “islamic terrorism” (which is obviously just a counter-terrorist response to western (christian) terrorism.) So by all means write a historical novel about the crusades, using bomber jets, instead of swords, and, in ordercto make it more realist: include how the attackers are compelled to attend church services in the army’s chappels, as was instated under GWB.

    Or let yourself be inspired by watching “Fascism in colour” on Utube, and consider how the current right wing is trying to do the same thing with the help of islamic terrorists. And, thanks to the disgust with the left, the left as cutltivated in many, the right i qute succesful at it, too. Sheep led to the slaughter. Sadly, thrley’re taking everyone with them.

    Novel-idea: Martian murder mystery

    Here’s another idea that I sadly had to reject: a space ship from Earth to Mars, with colonists, arrives with one less colonist, than it left with. The mystery baffles ground control on earth. An investigator is sent via a second ship (carrying supplies or whatever), but meets with resistance on Mars.
    What really happened was: somewhere behind the moon (the gravity of which was used to slingshot the space ship to Mars, one of the colonists woke out of hibernation and flused the body of the sleeping the politician that was to rule over te new colony, out the airlock, in order to give the colony a chance to survive/flourish.
    Isadly gave up on this idea, because it was too extreme (I found it hilarious myself, but realized it was maybe too much asked to find a sufficiently large readership to make it worthwhile) Still, I wish you all the best with this idea, dear writer!

    Why does capitalism work better than socialism?

    Socialism, being dictatorial, lets evertyhing (it’s always totalitarian) be decided by one person, unlike capitalism, which lets everything get decided by the market, which consists of millions of “one person”s. So, yes, capitalism is more social.

    And anarchism, with its zero rulers, is the most social and democratic of all.

    The roles of government, ep. 3: education

    It would befuddle the time-traveller from the middle-ages to find that the modern state feels obliged to interfere with education. Surely, that is a matter for the parents and the children?
    “But if the state would not manage education, how could it ensure that enough of certain classes of workers came about?”
    Ah, good question. If only because it exposes a political fallacy: the country (the population thereof) only serves their own / eachother’s purposes. The abstract, fantastical entity called the country (identifiable on maps, by flags & army-uniforms, and Olympic team-jerseys) has no interests in certain types of workers, that learn to be obedient little factory-workers, just like herr Bismarck envisioned it. The modern education system was merely designed for the factories supporting his warfaring nation.
    It’s the same question, asked long ago by someone on social media who felylt that the nation needed centrallized control. Proposing anarchism to them, and that was refuted your argument by asking: “When there’s no government, who would run the country?”
    Replying that in statelesness (anarchism) there is no country to run, and why bother with running a place where people live, breathe, eat, drink, work and entertain themselves, are born and eventually die: it’s not a corporation run for profit like a business. What if it were: for who’s profit would it be run? The people? (When do we, as share-holders get a share of the profits?) If we’re not the share-holders, who would that be, then?
    Results in stupefied silence.

    The role of government, ep. 2: titles to land/protection of property

    To expand upon episode 1: (which was also about ownership rights) registering/protecting/enforcing ownership rights/titles is a fairly legitimate role of government, one it fails at. But it would be considered (by anarchists/minarchists) to be a task, that it would be OK for government to perform.

    Sadly for statists, this task can also easily be performed by market institutions. Because assigning the role of protecting title (ownership) to government, requires that all ownership of land falls into the hands of government (either by default primordial declaration “This region is our region, so all the land here, is ours”, or bybway of asset forfeiture, which is a super crooked way for government to steal stuff from legal owners), and then government sells (or leases) the land to a party, keeping a copy of the sales agreement, so that, in case of dispute, the government remembers which party is the registered owner, and can thus levy taxes for the land ownership. (!)

    So long as the owner can define which land they own (eg by stating coordinates, or by referring to “all the land between these landmarks (like mountains, or lakes)”, a respected company can perform this duty of registrar. d

     would of course pose the risk of this registrar being bought up, and then ruling in favor of its parent company, when it would try to by up land owned by another.

    This qualm can be partly waylayed by pointing to the high price of purchasing the company, bring a deterrent for any such scheme. The registrar (R) would serve no further purpose anymore, after this scam has been pulled of. So the malicious company (M) would want to sell it off but if the reputation had gotten smeared by these practices, it woufld prove hard to sell, so M would be stuck with R.

    Of course, it is still possible that proceeds from the sale/exploitation of the land is worth the price M paid for R, so M would only have to implode R to rid themselves of that deadweight, if some companylies were to do this with all the land, and registrars, and they wouod merge making one single big company that owns all the land, firning a deacto new government. Perhaps instead of via a company (which is fallible), this could be arranged via block chain, or by having a chain of trusted registrars register the title of land/businesses, perhaps each registrar guards only one part of the title.

    It seems silly to keep a government, for fear of the risk of a (new) government. We now have 100% certainty of a government, and in this future scenario, there is a significamtly smaller chance if that.