Fixed that for you. If your neighbor commits atrocities, I wouldn't consider it an argument for getting rid of you or your other peaceful neighbors.
Then why do I need to be governed? I don't commit atrocities.
Even in an anarchic society, funds have to be raised for a common defense, right? You think somehow that would not be abused for profit?
It is possible, but the reason why we want a free society is so that there can be competition. Competition is a check on waste and corruption.
To argue against competition is to argue against evolution.
Right, and I am simply stating that many of the grand things that people have been indoctrinated to believe can only come from the government can actually be provided by private enterprise equally well, if not better...but not all of those things.
Then you need to make the case of which, and why they are different.
Sure, but that's not a risk society can take.
Society is an abstraction, a group. Only individuals take risks. To claim that individuals can't take a certain risk, implies that you think you know what is best for everyone. In that case, shouldn't you be President, or God or Fuhrer or something?
I'm sure there are plenty of people living up in the mountains of northern Idaho that are living their own anarchic wet dream and that's fine. To expect the rest of civilization to embrace that is just silly.
Why do you show so much disdain ("wet dream") for the personal peaceful choices of others? And why does the rest of civilization have to buy into anything, whether it is anarchy or the state? Why can't individuals choose for themselves how best to run their own lives? Oh yeah, because THAT would be anarchism.
Essentially the argument goes, we can't have anarchy because we can't have anarchy.
People are pack animals for the most part. Changing society to suit a handful of lone wolves is impractical because most of society has a pack instinct and they want structure and leaders and groups etc.
Let them choose that if they wish. Only individuals can determine what is practical for themselves. You cannot.
Anarchy needs a fundamental change in human nature to succeed on any scale and that would require undoing millions of years of evolution. Good luck with that.
So what you're essentially saying is that humans can't be free, because the best way to live is to enslave ourselves to one another.
I assume you support democracy, right? How can people vote for their rulers, if they are incompetent to rule themselves? What possible good judgment could humans exercise when choosing government, if your argument is that they lack the ability to govern themselves?
No such luck.
