Did I not say that men institute governments to alleviate "might-makes-right". Nothing you show demonstrates how anarchism would not degenerate to might-makes-right while all of human history shows that it would.
Nothing I’ve seen shows me that governments alleviate “might-makes-right,” in fact, it seems that governments are the absolute most egregious exploiters of “might-makes-right.”
All instances of this voluntary interactions you laud, such as the Law Merchant, existed because of the protections of the governments, not in spite of them. Even today many industries handle disputes internally through arbitration. Why can they do this? Do they do this in retaliation to the state? No, they do this because the state maintains order. They do this because they have recourse to the state if the arbitration system breaks down.
I don’t want to step on your guys’ discussion, and I’m not an expert on these matters, but I believe that things such as Law Merchant existed, because the apparatus of the “state” (in a wide sense of the word) failed to provide successful arbitration. If I remember correctly, the penalty of being “shunned” by fellow merchants proved much higher price than having the Baron of some crap province in the Netherlands put a price on your head.
I have continuously advocated for higher levels of arbitration to alleviate wars and "might-makes-right". Why hasn't there been a war in western Europe for 60 years yet it was common place before that? Because the states submit to a higher power than themselves; namely, the UN and the EU.
Before 1945, the leaders of governments were immune from the consequences of their war mongering (the occasional beheaded Tzar aside). After the innocent citizens of two Japanese cities were vaporized in yet another act of government, it became clear that invading certain countries might actually have a consequence for the leadership of the aggressor nation. When Western “leaders” wanted to give billions of dollars to their weapon peddling friends, they now had to invade countries in the third world. The Soviets did the same.
You ask why western Europe hasn’t had a war in 60 years (Greece, Turkey, uprisings in the eastern block, Ulster, and the Basque regions aside). My counter question is, isn’t the presence of nuclear weapons (or in the case of, say, the Netherlands, protection by nations with nuclear weapons) a better predictor of being invaded (as in, it predicts that you won’t be invaded). This allows the entry of China, N. Korea, India and Pakistan (recently) into the category of “peaceful” nations.
The idea that nations submit to the UN does not bear up under scrutiny. Powerful nations ignore the UN or use it to legitimize their invasion, colonization, and financial domination of smaller, weaker nations. Weaker nations ignore the UN when dealing horizontally with other weak nations (unless, of course, a powerful nation wants to manage the financial apparatus or resources of the country, then the UN will station soldiers there).