Personal preference regarding the State vs Anarchism

Throughout all of the arguments presented by anarchists, it is never disputed that people who choose to live under a government have the right to do so. The arguments for anarchism boil down to having the right to individual secession. So consequently this means that I’m not asking you to prefer living under anarchy yourself, I’m merely asking that you recognise the right of all individuals to choose what type of society they would like to live in for themselves. 

So what kind of sacrifice are we talking about here? It would mean you no could longer vote to democratically impose your choices on other people who happen to dislike democracy. It would mean the tax base from which your preferred state authority drew its income from would be diminished (because of people who opted out), meaning that each state might have to reexamine its expenditure to compensate for the reduced income. 

Personally, I think that if market anarchism would be a great success if it were to be tried today on a sufficiently large enough scale (say an area large enough to encompass a few different towns living in anarchy) and if the requisite social change in people’s attitudes was achieved. As long as the surrounding governments or individuals did not try to block trade or get violent with the anarchist area, this anarchist society would represent an opportunity for increased economic growth and expansion because of the zero tax environment where the only regulation is free market competition between firms. In turn, I think this prosperity would encourage secession movements elsewhere, meaning that towns and individuals all over the world would also secede once it is seen that anarchism is viable.

But let’s say you disagree, even if your personal preferences are not the same as mine (ie you prefer statism to anarchism), allowing secession will still have benefits for your preferred statist society, because it means that governments are forced to become more accountable to their citizens. Why would this be? It would be because governments would now have to compete for your income and support, rather than simply taking it by force. It would streamline state services because the government would now have more reason to care about it’s expenses and rules. It would mean that the government would be more cautious about restricting the civil liberties of its citizens because they could just opt out if the laws became too draconian. It would have the effect of changing the current condition of all citizens being held accountable to their government, and make it more of a two way street, so that all governments are also accountable to their citizens.

I’m not asking you to prefer anarchism yourself, I’m only asking you to allow other people a choice.