>why the arbitrator needs to be a coercive state
Because the party that loses the arbitration is not going to just submit, you giant fucking idiot. They will likely fight back with violence the moment it doesn't go their way. Which means the judge has to have enough violence at his command to essentially make him a "coercive state".
>why the market can't produce arbitrators
Because a neutral, nonviolent private arbitrator only works when the stakes are ridiculously low. That's why small claims court is a thing.
When the matter is something of huge value, or something people are emotionally invested in (rape, muder etc), it's not going to be settled by a fucking private arbitrator.
>Unless you are coming at this through some 14 year old "fuck you dad" mentality when any sort of authority is coercive or a cop telling you that you cant spray paint all over someone elses property is a fascist.
He is, basically.
>Or see what happens to whomever attempts to secede from the voluntary republic
Sovereignity - complete control and ownership of a body over itself. Only if no one else has influence or control over you, can you say you're sovereign.
For someone born in a republic this would mean:
Step 1: Pay parents, grandparents and ancestors in perpetuity for bringing him to life and raising him to be self sufficient. Pay all public services for simply being available for use, even if you didn't use them.
Step 2: Stake out a territory and be capable of protecting your property and yourself from all comers, even if an entire state shows up at your door you need to be able to protect it.
Step 3: Never use other peoples property or land without paying for the privilege.
If you can fulfill all three, you are free to secede from the republic, if not, fuck off.
>Bob Murphy gets the point across
No he fucking doesn't. His conclusion, translated: "if people don't hurt others because a someone threatens to hurt them if they hurt others - that means they won't hurt anyone if there's no one to threaten to hurt them if they hurt others." Which makes no sense, it's a broken tautology, he's saying "if fire burns, then a lack of fire also burns". Fucking what?
Look at this sentence:
>First, let us reflect that a large standing army, ready to crush minority dissenters, is not an unambiguously desirable feature of government.
He doesn't have an argument there, he just says "let us reflect that I'm right". He makes a statement without any evidence or argument, and such statements can be countered with a simple kindergarten utterance - Nuh uh! He assumes "minority dissenters" are virtuous by simply being the minority. Of course minorities can't be bad! It's not like 400,000 gang members in a country of 300,000,000 can be bad! It's not like bands of pirates and highwaymen could be evil! It is unambiguously desirable to have a standing army crushing minority dissenters, because most of the time minority dissenters are violent sons of bitches.
This "bob murphy" then proceeds to embarrass himself by not knowing how states arose in the first place and claiming some ridiculous fictional myth about a "contract".