A government doesn't have to have vice laws. It doesn't have to fight unjust wars. If we had something in the Constitution that explicitly forbade Congress to delegate powers to the executive branch, we probably wouldn't be in Iraq.
Since you make the distinction, are the Somali warlords a government, or a mob? What about the janjaweed in Sudan? If we had supported the Wiemar Republic, rather than imposing humiliating sanctions, it might have stood against fascism. 72 million people would have been saved an untimely and often gruesome death. Totalitarian governments are responsible for most atrocities, and representative governments are actually keeping the casualty count down. We need to shrink the government more, yes, but not so much that it fails to preempt a truly horrible State. Chris > Esbuck, > > That sounds logical until you factor in some fundamental > realities. 1) By far most of the crime and gangs are a direct > result of government laws against consensual "crimes". 2) Through > their unjust laws, unjust wars, and their many other abuses, the > government currently causes that which you fear would ensue > without it. 3) Historically, governments have been the worst > murderers - far worse than mobs - even without counting all the > collateral damage from their unjust laws. > > It seems that when you describe that which government is supposed > to protect you from, you are describing "government". > > -------------------------- > > > Anarchy, like communism, appeals to a lot of people on a > philosophical > basis, but anarchy, like communism, doesn't seem to work in the > real world. In > each case, the "problem" is that individuals are different, and > some of them > are evil. > > We have an example of anarchism in action in Somalia, which > apparently has > no recognizable government. > In places, tribal traditions and membership suffice to enforce > contracts, > etc. If you fail to pay your debts, your extended family takes > care to > preserve their honor and then exerts coercion to make you behave > according to the > rules. That's not what most libertarians would like, as it > requires conformity > to the "code" of the group. Elsewhere, war lords hold sway, the > worst of > repressive government (organized crime) without any legitimacy. > Then there is > mob rule by religious fanatics. Generally, the economy does > not work, and > people are not free. > > Here in mid-America, one would hope that we could manage our > affairs without > mobs or despots, but when I observe "anarchic" drivers on the > roads and hear > of drive-by shootings and gang activity, not to mention rape, > burglary, > arson, etc., it seems to me that, were there no "professional" > law enforcement, > my neighbors would invent government to provide it. Since the > poor, and the > gangs, will not pay for law enforcement, some "socialistic" (tax > supported) > scheme would emerge. Mob rule, vigilante justice, is not > acceptable, as we > know that mobs have poor judgement and little rational > investigative ability. > We need "professionals" to protect us from the mob. Multiple, > privately > funded police organizations, insurance companies against fraud > and violence, > would interfere with each other, becoming much like the rival > gangs which defend > their turf in the inner city. (Bank guards and mall security > firms do not > protect me, just their employers) > > I agree that that government is best which governs least, but it > would seem > that some sort of collective action is necessary. Given anarchy, > some > collectives (gangs, tribes) will spontaneously form and will > likely impose on > others. Humans are social animals; they do that. How, then, > will anarchy > function with human nature? > > > > ------------------------------------ > > ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
