This thing took so damn long to write that I'm not proofreading it.
You don't have to move, but if you don't like your government you're not forced to stay. It sounded like moving was a good option for you so I suggested it.
Can I opt out of all of them?
No, because unified regulation of particular products can make things a lot more fluid and efficient when you're dealing with hundreds of millions of people. It's nice to consolidate key components of a good country (defense, roads, courts, postal service, etc) under something centralized, transparent, and democratically voted on. And again you're free to leave, there is nothing forcing you to be there. The purpose of a government isn't to control your life, it's to help make it better. Most people don't want to worry about who to pay for security issues, national defense, streets to drive on, etc.
Why do I need to opt out instead of opt in?
See above response.
No, it's not theoretical. Private defense agencies have existed throughout history. And the anarchist notion includes competition, which is the check on any business in the marketplace (economics again).
Pulling certain principles of anarchy and saying "Hey, look, they exist over there in the real world!" is not an example of a 100 million plus person society functioning without any rulers or government.
Most crime is committed by government if you believe that aggression against people and property is a crime.
And most people don't think their government is being aggressive towards them.
Just eliminating government would cause a massive drop in the amount of crime in society.
Nope, because most people don't think taxes are a crime. They favor the idea of consolidating programs under 1 source that the entire country watches and votes on, and willingly pay their taxes.
Sure, in the sense that people who were talking about ending slavery 250 years ago were only talking about ideas. Or people talking about giving women the vote 150 years ago were only talking about ideas.
Yeah, that wasn't my point. But since you brought it up, anarchy doesn't come close to eclipsing civil rights. Civil rights makes sense to pretty much any person, and anarchy is generally disagreed with by most people. They're not comparable.
Which human is good enough to need rules, and to create them, and to enforce them? Aren't you arguing that person could be an anarchist since he can make his own rules and follow them?
If you really, really, really hate all governments, it wouldn't be that hard to erase your identity and go live in the mountains with a few people killing your own food and living like it's the Hunger Games. But modern people don't like societies with no rules because they don't make sense, so you kind of have to deal with that fact. Somalia has buildings and you're free to move there, there is nobody in Canada stopping you and no government in Somalia to keep you from coming in.
Libertarianism I think will continue to grow, but anarchy won't.
People are welcome to have government. They just aren't welcome to impose it on me. The same way people should not impose religion on me.
lol comparing governments to religions. I used to do that when I was into reading about anarchy. Governments consist of real people doing real things to try and regulate societies. Religions are...not real.
Do I need to prove to you that peace is preferable to violence?
No. Do I need to prove to you that a significant portion of people prefer violence over peace? Some people are just wired that way. You have to be willing to sacrifice a tiny shred of freedom in an attempt to make things safer for the herd. Humans move in groups and they like it that way.
Do you understand what a priorism is? If not, look into it. Not all knowledge is deductive. Much of it is inductive. All of your arguments are deductive only.
Because you're not willing to throw reality into the equations here. I would bet a handsome amount of money that if a massive country were to transition to anarchy where there was no centralized source of anything, that it would evolve back into a government really quickly. Certain companies would dominate, consolidate verticals, and end up controlling production for a vast majority of the population. States will inevitably form, start arguing over production of things, and they'd all hire security companies to resolve the disputes for them. I mean, this is what the government is supposed to be. It's based on many of the principles of anarchy is based on but takes into account the fact that you're dealing with hundreds of millions of people all with different belief systems.
Nations are abstractions. Lines on a map.
No, lines on a map help us map out nations. Nations are generally comprised of states, which are more lines used to describe areas with humans living in them. The states (human societies) all work together on most things they agree about working together on, and they work together through 1 regulated source.
I am a methodological individualist. I don't deal in abstractions like that.
How prestigious of you. Only your definition of abstract is pretty abstract in itself if you think nations are abstractions. Nation is a word. Words help us describe things. National generally means a collection of real live people.
There is no such thing as a government without corruption, by your own argument, humans are flawed, and governments are run by humans.
Right, and by the same token there is no such thing as anarchy without corruption. Anarchy is a society or grouping of people without rulers. So I don't really see the point.
If you want government (power over people) without corruption or politics, you're the Utopian. You're clueless about how humans respond to incentives.
I understand that governments can't exist without corruption unless humans all become not corrupt. If you want anarchy (no rules) without corruption or politics, you're definitely a clueless Utopian. So again I don't see the point.
If you give man power over another, he will abuse it.
I mean...wtf are private security companies that "resolve disputes" then? What if the man who killed someone believes he did nothing wrong and doesn't believe he deserves to be killed? Does the security company walk away and let the guy get away with murder, or use force to impose violence on the killer?
Yes sensei.
You speak in an incredibly demeaning tone, is that typical from someone involved with Mises? Do you really think I have never attended economics lectures or spent hours watching videos on economics?
You can't protect me if you are forcing me to pay some arbitrary fee.
YOU CAN MOVE GODDAMNIT. What fucking part of that concept do you not understand? You don't
have to move, but if you feel like you're being violently forced to do something,
you can move. If you're really onto something your family will agree and come with you. But that won't happen because anarchy is a dumb idea. HERP.
The market can't be free, because the government as a monopoly always supersedes the market and human behavior.
Properly run democratic governments are a reflection of human behavior, that's the point. It doesn't supersede it.
And if men were angels we wouldn't even need a government!
Right, if every person believed in the same things and acted in the same way, anarchy would be cool. We both know that's not the case though, you were the first one to point that out in another one of your sarcastic replies.
Except if you forced people to pay that would be theft.
I'll say it again because it's fun. Move. Taxation is generally not seen by anybody as theft in countries where you are free to leave without ramifications. You're arguing a belief system that is extremely unique and small. It's not unique and small because it's an idea that just hasn't come to grips with most humans yet, it's unique and small because it's stupid and most people acknowledge that.
You don't need any force. You just need people to respect property rights/embrace non-aggression.
Hahaha. You don't need force, you just need people to all think and act the same way without forcing them. Utopia maybe?
