It's never happened before in the entirety of human history, but you can dream.
Anarchistic communities have existed in the past, but non-violent cooperation is an advanced accomplishment for a society. Even the best of those societies were conquered from outside by a more centralized force, but that doesn't make them a failure. The information revolution and higher education levels make outright violence ever more difficult for governments to justify. Not only can I dream, but I can put my money where my mouth is!
Enforcement of rules is downright necessary to achieve mutual benefit.
What is necessary is capacity for self-defense, not centralization.
I see no reason to conflate government with imaginary deities, a priori.
And yet you assign supernatural rights to it. If I and a bunch of my friends take money from you by force - that's called stealing. But if we "vote" to take money from you by force - that's called taxes. Why is the latter justified when former isn't? It's just a quasi-religious ritual, nothing more, nothing less.
Capitalism as an economic system has nothing to do with your notions of voluntary cooperation for mutual benefit.
The term I use is anarcho-capitalism, because just by itself the term "capitalism" has come to mean "crony capitalism", where it is corrupted by government, which I most certainly am against.
Your idea of "capitalism" smells like another imaginary deity.
It is a social and economic theory that makes rational sense to me, while other theories do not. I find AnCap to be moral, non-contradictory, and compatible with my perception of reality through all available means. If I'll ever come across a better theory, I most certainly will "convert", but so far I haven't.
Are you saying that the federal or state government should act as an insurance company would or that insurance companies should offer volcano insurance to people living near volcanos?
The latter. In a free society governments would be like churches, optional clubs catering to the faithful, with no far-reaching powers to impose their will on others. The free market, on the other hand, contains multitudes of people looking to make a buck, and the only way you can do that in a free society is by offering something valuable to someone else in exchange.
When buying a house, it is in your rational self-interest to know what potential threats to your property exist. Various competing property appraisal and quality assurance agencies would exist, as well as non-profit institutions, publications, private research universities, and so on. It would be in their interest to study and monitor the nearby volcanoes, and this information would be included in the appraisal service you may order (or the seller might have one ahead of time, which you can choose to accept or challenge based on the agency's reputation).
If you choose to live in an area that is likely to be affected by a volcano, that is your decision, and you should carry any added costs that come from this decision. There might be benefits as well: like lower housing prices due to less demand for people to move into the area, etc. When the when the top does blow, you are responsible for your own safety and your property. Most people will choose to plan ahead, spread out the costs, and get another self-interested party to share your risks - that's where insurance would come in. It is in the insurance company's own interest to reduce the damage done to their clients, including making sure they have ample warning, making sure evacuation services are available, researching safety equipment, and so on.
Anything the government can do, the free market can do better. If Katrina is any indication, the government would be more interested in confiscating guns and instituting martial law than actual concern for people's safety. Government bureaucrats have no vested interest in helping you, only in retaining and expanding their power, which they can do without your consent. Governments have killed hundreds of millions in the 20th century alone!
They simply cannot be trusted!
