My views are mixed. I generally view mutualists and their kin as allies, and hold mutualist sympathies in that I reject the defence of statist market institutions unlike more moderate libertarians (e.g. corporations, which benefit from state privilege which are too often defended using free-market economics). I also tend to view usury and wage slavery as symptoms of such unfree markets, similar to mutualists. Although, unlike Carson, I reject LTV.

On the other hand, I would not consider myself a voluntarist because I do not believe in the NAP axiomatically; i.e. I support it from a rule-consequentialist perspective. Furthermore, I my view an absolutely voluntary society is necessarily impossible to achieve. This is because the term "voluntary" is based on a set of property norms, and if you don't agree with those property norms, they are violently imposed upon you. Different property norms result in different definitions of "voluntary".

Perhaps at this point I should share some empirical evidence on the issue, as your argument and mine are dependent on the level of scale and integration economies that exist;

Perhaps a good example: It is far cheaper to produce grain the prairies (per hectare yield is higher) than say in the ontario-quebec plateau region; There exist scale economies in production of grain (one horse can cover many acres; A tractor even more) and in it's distribution vial rail (one train can carry multiple carries of grain with the same engine on the same tracks).

Hydro-Quebec is not subsidized; It is a net contribute to it's shareholder (our provincial government).

Perhaps I should make clear that I mean firm level economies of scale; not individual plant level ones; So a firm can have multiple plants over a large area, and take advantage of scope economies in labour (an dam engineer can design multiple plants; ANd even gets better as he works on more projects through the learning by doing effect).

The information problem is actually rather contingent on the technological availability; As computing, communication and transports cost diminish, information flow potential is upscaled.

The coordination issue however remains in too decentralized systems (now of course it really depends on the sectors; Fruit stands don't need a specialized inter-disciplinary administrative body; Electric power firms however do)

It is indeed cheaper; As we even used to have a market as such (although I can call it a pure unregulated market, given the government did exist and did mandate that the electricity companies not kill citizens, not compensate them some how for building near their property, etc.)

Scale economies are very pervasive in network like industries like electric distribution, water distirbution, oil and gas pipelines, rails, telephone lines ,etc. They are also to a lesser degree in capital intensive manufacturing; Which communication and transportation technology have made cheaper to have larger firms in.

Clearly the argument rest on how much you think scale economies exist in goods industries;

I can give a good examples: Steel production; Plant size has been increasing with time; One of the reasons Japan did so well in steel in the 1970s was because it utilized the newest technology and built plants larger than the largest ones in both the US and the USSR (so much for the myth of Soviet mega-projects XD).

(cont. defense). And so I figure the citizens would probably band together and form a community defense league; pretty much indistinguishable from the city states of antiquity. And of course the large the community the less costly defense becomes to a point (given one army can protect one house or a million of them).

Now the free rider problem in defense of multiple individual's property;

The issue is when a a group decides to attack a region in which multiple defense companies serve; If they are clearly to go house by house on a block for instance, and there is say only one household holding a defense contract, then all those whose houses were to be attacked after his would able to free ride, assuming the defence company arrives to save just in time to save his.

Now presumably all humans are risk averse enough to want to have security; In this case becomes a free riding problem of competing firms in the same region; In the same raiding scenario above with all houses covered by multiple defense agencies, each on has the incentive to hold back on it's costly dispatch crew, given which ever firm arrives first will basically deal with the all the pillagers (given these pillagers are guaranteed to attack a whole row).

(cont.)

This gave it the assets to be able to back it large investments (coupled with guarantees from the government), that would otherwise not be possible with smaller firms. And thus here in Quebec we enjoy some of the lowest electricity prices in the world, due to: 1- scale economies in transmission & distribution as well as to a lesser degree in production 2- Less financial risk due to assets levels, 3- Low transaction costs between the parts of integrated company, as well as regulation (the shareholder being one and the same) 4- The size of the company allowed borrowing to finance large dam projects which have enormous start up costs but very low maintenance costs compared to say nuclear + low environmental impact when compared to fossil fuels.