Calling idea ridiculous for being extreme is dishonest. Idea either has merit or it does not, regardless of your opinion of its extremity. Roundness of Earth was also considered extreme, that does not change its validity.
You say I'm extending definition of "threat of murder" to everyone. That's true, but it's not their fault. If we both have a thing called "court", then even if I don't want myself to inflict violence on you, I'm not sure you won't use the court against me. Since the court has the last word and all the guns in the world, I have no choice, but to protect myself by either fleeing from the jurisdiction or using the court against you. It's absolutely the same with patents: Apple and Google are buying up patents because if one of them does not, they will be damaged by others. You could blame them only if they had voluntarily established such a destructive system for themselves, but they did not. Patent cross-licensing is an evidence that people do not like fighting with each other: by doing cross-licensing two entities expect to reduce amount of stupid fight. Of course, human nature is not perfect and some people who are born into this system, feel they have a full moral right to use it for their benefit. E.g. recent war of Apple against Samsung is mostly proactive use of violence that was sold via patents. But even here, the problem does not begin with Apple, but with those who controls the guns (Apple only hired some of them).
Without state some people can still voluntarily fund an agency with guns, courts, licensing and patents. But it will be very different from today's situation. Because today the violence is paid by taxpayers, not the actual users. So when some army of lawyers wants to press you for copying a file, it is not them who pay for prosecutors, lawmakers, prisons, police, propaganda, army and huge bureaucracy. Lawyers spend their salary not on guns and prisons, but on iPods and spa. So how about trying to build an army of policemen using private funds? What would be the business model? Who would risk putting money in the enterprise?
If you seriously fear that someone could earn a $billion and then risk all of it to build a James Bond-style corporation of evil, then you for sure cannot advocate the state - a monopoly on violence funded by forcible extraction instead of voluntary investment. Did you notice that all of evil guys in James Bond movies were either government-funded or absolutely economically impossible (how would you gather 1000 engineers to build a secret nuclear weapon without massive public propaganda that military spendings are good for "society")? All real big mafia structures exist with governmental support. And the bigger they are - the more support they have. Actually, the government is simply a name for the biggest organized thugs in a given region.
Ultimately, it boils down to existence of choice: those who have no choice are not moral agents. If someone attacks me, I will defend myself, but I cannot justify any violence and I don't need to - I simply have no choice. If we both are in a situation when court ruling will put one of us in jail, we have no choice but to play this game. Are we morally responsible for this? Not as much, as the prosecutor, who sure has a choice to not threaten either of us. Equally, if someone steals a wallet from you, and you do not expect any violent threat from this guy, would you think it's morally justified to catch him and put in jail? If he cannot give you wallet back without you breaking his neck, would you prefer to let him go and make sure he never steals again (using doors, locks, reputation, insurance, ostracism), or will you threaten him with physical violence? If latter, would you institutionalize this threat of violence (and accept a risk of getting hit by it), or you'd rather not give anyone ultimate power and seek more preventive solutions?
If you can hire a protection agency voluntarily, would you require maximum transparency of its operations and other proofs that they cannot kill people arbitrarily and would immediately lose a lot of money in case everyone withdraws their contracts? If you want to be an armed guard, you sure will have to prove to everyone how they will punish you effectively in case of a corruption. Without such proof, no one will hire you. If you would require such transparency and strict controls as a customer of protection agency, why is it okay to have a government who was not established with your consent and which cannot be affected directly and immediately in case of misbehavior, but on contrary is forcing you to fund it anyway? It is huge logical mistake to fear a violent guy in a free market and at the same time allow a system of monopoly of such violence that surely will attract people who'd love to use such power.
You say I'm extending definition of "threat of murder" to everyone. That's true, but it's not their fault. If we both have a thing called "court", then even if I don't want myself to inflict violence on you, I'm not sure you won't use the court against me. Since the court has the last word and all the guns in the world, I have no choice, but to protect myself by either fleeing from the jurisdiction or using the court against you. It's absolutely the same with patents: Apple and Google are buying up patents because if one of them does not, they will be damaged by others. You could blame them only if they had voluntarily established such a destructive system for themselves, but they did not. Patent cross-licensing is an evidence that people do not like fighting with each other: by doing cross-licensing two entities expect to reduce amount of stupid fight. Of course, human nature is not perfect and some people who are born into this system, feel they have a full moral right to use it for their benefit. E.g. recent war of Apple against Samsung is mostly proactive use of violence that was sold via patents. But even here, the problem does not begin with Apple, but with those who controls the guns (Apple only hired some of them).
Without state some people can still voluntarily fund an agency with guns, courts, licensing and patents. But it will be very different from today's situation. Because today the violence is paid by taxpayers, not the actual users. So when some army of lawyers wants to press you for copying a file, it is not them who pay for prosecutors, lawmakers, prisons, police, propaganda, army and huge bureaucracy. Lawyers spend their salary not on guns and prisons, but on iPods and spa. So how about trying to build an army of policemen using private funds? What would be the business model? Who would risk putting money in the enterprise?
If you seriously fear that someone could earn a $billion and then risk all of it to build a James Bond-style corporation of evil, then you for sure cannot advocate the state - a monopoly on violence funded by forcible extraction instead of voluntary investment. Did you notice that all of evil guys in James Bond movies were either government-funded or absolutely economically impossible (how would you gather 1000 engineers to build a secret nuclear weapon without massive public propaganda that military spendings are good for "society")? All real big mafia structures exist with governmental support. And the bigger they are - the more support they have. Actually, the government is simply a name for the biggest organized thugs in a given region.
Ultimately, it boils down to existence of choice: those who have no choice are not moral agents. If someone attacks me, I will defend myself, but I cannot justify any violence and I don't need to - I simply have no choice. If we both are in a situation when court ruling will put one of us in jail, we have no choice but to play this game. Are we morally responsible for this? Not as much, as the prosecutor, who sure has a choice to not threaten either of us. Equally, if someone steals a wallet from you, and you do not expect any violent threat from this guy, would you think it's morally justified to catch him and put in jail? If he cannot give you wallet back without you breaking his neck, would you prefer to let him go and make sure he never steals again (using doors, locks, reputation, insurance, ostracism), or will you threaten him with physical violence? If latter, would you institutionalize this threat of violence (and accept a risk of getting hit by it), or you'd rather not give anyone ultimate power and seek more preventive solutions?
If you can hire a protection agency voluntarily, would you require maximum transparency of its operations and other proofs that they cannot kill people arbitrarily and would immediately lose a lot of money in case everyone withdraws their contracts? If you want to be an armed guard, you sure will have to prove to everyone how they will punish you effectively in case of a corruption. Without such proof, no one will hire you. If you would require such transparency and strict controls as a customer of protection agency, why is it okay to have a government who was not established with your consent and which cannot be affected directly and immediately in case of misbehavior, but on contrary is forcing you to fund it anyway? It is huge logical mistake to fear a violent guy in a free market and at the same time allow a system of monopoly of such violence that surely will attract people who'd love to use such power.