NATO was merely an example of an agreement between parties without a common boundary.
What impedes the rapid development of a rational society?
I think the early US was heading in the right direction and it was power hungry people that used (abused) the power of government to bring us to our current state.
I certainly agree that the current road system is superior to the 1920's. Perhaps they would be even better if they were not in the hands of government. They have been going "downhill" in California since the tax money for them was hijacked by the state legislature.
It seems to me that if something is such a "good idea" people will fund it. The mistake we need to learn to avoid is forcing "our" good ideas upon others.
As you say "Perhaps it can happen..." and I too hope so. If we can get past the notion that the majority can vote money out of A's pocket into B's we, I think, would have a very good chance of making the "dumb ones" irrelevant. Or perhaps when faced with the consequences of their bad decisions they would learn. As it is now they have very little incentive to do so.
But as you say "Good luck with that."

Yes, defense against others for private property, natural resources and person-property (e.g. being governed by them).

I witness NATO, essentially benefiting from overwhelming public investments by the US, that no private company could muster. If you take out the US, the rest is militarily fragile.
I see no path to protection by a voluntary military participation society against the likes of Russia or China. If the US was not here, the world would be communist by now, and little would remain to protect.
Thus, my point about local minima. Perhaps a rational society of "ants" can develop adequate defenses in time and with concerted effort. However, the "grasshoppers" will undermine this, as will enemy grasshoppers. Clearly, this rational society can not develop as fast as necessary to accomplish what is needed. Ample historic evidence shows it hasn't to date, and there is no evidence these rational people will band together and accomplish it anytime soon.

Yes, there are private roads. I live on one. While it is nice to say the airways are not owned. We did not always have planes, and I don't have one now. This is irrelevant.
The road system we have today is infinitely superior to the one we had in the 1920s, and even much of that was public. Again, while it is possible some collection of private property owners will agree, and fund an interstate highway system, this hasn't happened anywhere.

Perhaps it can happen if there is a suitable concentration of smart, rational people with vision. The only way this is going to happen is if we figure out a way to get rid of the dumb ones, and maintain the population. Good luck with that.

Re. question 1: In defense of what? Private property? Must the defensible area be contiguous? If so why? Witness NATO, etc.
Re. question 2: There have always been paths not owned by anyone. The airways are not "owned" (sans government). All such issues are resolvable by rational beings -- i.e. do not expect others to live for your sake and do not live for theirs.

Ok, then how will this voluntary defense work, if there is not a clear border?
Do we negotiate with each property owner individually to travel?

Geographic boundaries -- not necessarily.
Membership -- certainly (by definition).
Assertion of the individual, or acknowledgement from the society membership -- both.

What defines participation in this society? Geographic boundaries?, Membership? Assertion of the individual, or acknowledgement from the society membership?

This is really an analogy, but for illustration performance on the x axis and cost on the y-axis

Equitable presupposes to whom? My fundamental premise for a "moral" society is that it is voluntary and adheres to the principle of "non initiation of force." Thus, if one thought an organization to not be equitable, one would not be forced to join nor should one expect to reap the rewards of membership. Some non member may benefit but that would be by the grace of others.
As to workable, it is my view that a society that forces its members (or others) to do their bidding is engaging in slavery and is always ultimately unworkable. Perhaps I am wrong but I think the evidence (for example early America) suggests otherwise (in the workable direction) and current America (in the unworkable direction).
To me "band together" means to voluntarily come together for a mutual purpose. Some examples might be: "voluntary firemen", a local militia (recall the "minute men"), and community schools.

" it will find the local minima in a curve"
What are the two variables of this function?

That doesn't sound workable or equitable.

What does "band together" mean? Pool $ or pool firearms?

Most believe that few would fund the military and the rest would be "moochers" and perhaps this is true (to their detriment). I think that others would naturally band together for mutual protection. For example the "Gulch" might very well become a reality if it were not for the government.

So people who want protection fund it, and everyone benefits? Although that seems like a way to minimize waste. It also leave the country one step away from "gone" at each interaction.

On a voluntary basis.

I just mean it will find the local minima in a curve, and might even be disrupted by appropriate vision and financial resources to find another minima not too far away (like an investment in a windows UI, like Xerox made, changing the whole computing industry). However, it can not (I assert, and want to see challenged) find a global minima where enormous resources and strength of law (force) are required, perhaps like the military.

"monotonic optimization of capitalism will not support an appropriate global minima"
When I think of monotonic, I think of a curve whose slope never crosses zero. It's always increasing or decreasing. Is that what you mean?

I think of gov't as a way to pay for public goods, goods that cannot be excluded from those who don't want to pay, e.g. military and the highway system. I note how in my life time the phone company went from being something like this to something run privately. I'd like to see that happen with highways too, to the extent possible.

I think the same thing with the military. It would be nice to have a well-regulated militia, as quaint as that sounds today, provide some of the protection that a standing army does today. We'd still need the military for missile detection and things like that, but in terms of preventing an invasion, having most households owning weapons and emergency supplies seems effective. It also underscores symbolically that we the people grant power to the gov't. Adults have to be the adults and have to be responsible with weapons and equipment.

Maybe. Let's use a simple example and see how we think it plays out. How would the military be funded without government?

Yes indeed.
Why is it that so few understand this simple elegant point?

Why not just drop "we need the government" and keep "large voluntary group"?
The difficulty lies in how to determine what the "much better, larger scope optima" happen to be.
I think the market is the ultimate way to decide with each of us voting with our dollars.

Jefferson borrowed heavily from George Mason's Virginia Declaration of Rights which reads in "Section 1. That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety..." http://www.nationalcenter.org/Virgini...

Jefferson rewrote it for stylistic reasons. It flows better than Mason's.

I feel very much the same. Thanks

"The only legitimate use of force is granted to the government..." should be "The only legitimate government use of force is granted to the government..." so that self defense force by an individual would be legitimate use of force and one's body would not have to lie dead before force from the government kicked in..

I think that under the current state of the nation you are as close to an Objectivist ideal as you can be. I think that Objectivist "purists" will chide that interstate etc. should be private and not a gov. function. Again, in a perfect world.....but that's not what we reside in. We all realize that Government's only job is to protect its citizens in every sense of the word, But today, that would be like trying to disassemble the Pyramids.

Do you think I'm full of poop, or does my thought on government make sense? I've used it here and there, but it should be tested in this crucible.

You are correct, but the problem was that slavery still existed at that point. The Founders (for the most part) wanted to abolish slavery, but their efforts to do so nearly sank the Continental Congress. It was only the 3/5 Compromise that kept it alive at all. To a slave owner, slaves were very literally property. Jefferson didn't want to grant any kind of interpretive support for slavery in the Declaration of Independence, so he re-wrote the phrase. If he were living in today's world, you can bet that he would use property instead.

You assume that the government is moral, however. Government in its more generic sense is there strictly to perpetuate government. ;)