@IMPress Polly
(I'm bored, lonely, and waiting for people to wake up, so...)
My query to you is on our area of disagreement, and that circles around using the state to produce a communitarian society. You seem to feel, and I'd like to know if a) I'm wrong and b) the justification, that it is acceptable to use controls/force to produce the society you want against the wishes of those who may disagree.
In a voluntarist society we foresee something similar to federalism so that force is not applied. To the voluntarist the nonaggression principle is the only "law". A community is an organic, voluntary collective and accept that other communities may be different and should handle their own "injustice". So for example, my ideal community would have a central garden that everyone can work. If you don't work, you don't eat from it. People would chip in on livestock. If you don't chip in you get no livestock. There would be medishares for health. Roads would be paid for by the community or by toll for those not in the community. Power is a cooperative, etc. Land ownership would be non-existent in the modern understanding of it but Georgianism (you own the improvements). Private paid security and something akin to neighborhood watch would be the method of protecting citizens from crime and fire.
If someone wish to aggress we'd have a militia.
We would not prevent a business owner from hiring because that is a voluntary exchange between that owner and the people who chooses to work for him or her. How a monopoly would be prevented is the organic approach where there are no special favors given, regulations would not be existing to prop up one over another.
You may ask how in my anti-state we'd prevent pollution or toxic dumping:
an active militia to defend the town from bad water, bad food, etc. The non-aggression principle allows for the defense of your person, property, or shared resources.