Which is MORE idealistic: thinking government can be what it proves it's not, or thinking free-market capitalism can be what it proves it is?
Your definition of anarchy might need some tweaking. If an overbearing majority declare themselves in charge and forms an armed group to enforce their decisions, then it's no longer anarchy - it's government. If you fear anarchy because it will invite government, then you actually don't fear anarchy; you fear government. If you think people will always make trouble, then don't ever agree to give any of them any amount of monopolistic/coercive power. --------------------------- That's the thing. I see anarchy as an idealization. I think people will always make trouble, and I think a minimal government produces the most Liberty, from an empirical standpoint. I favor a government with a monopoly on final arbitration, not force. Self-defense is an individual right. I have some ideas for how to fund such a government without resort to theft. I think we could make it work. I think it's worth investigating. Even if it isn't possible, I question whether anarchy is stable, or merely a transition to another government. The new government would probably be less than ideal. I fear the biggest danger in anarchy is not marauding criminals, but overbearing majorities. I think a majority of citizens will take a vote and declare themselves in charge. They will form some armed group to enforce their decisions. They will justify it all in the name of democracy. The Republic, whose first purpose is to uphold individual rights, will be replaced by a bunch of populist majority-dictatorships. In reality many of these will be controlled by demagogues, or powerful minorities. War between them will probably happen eventually, to add to the fun. Idealists would be able to be form many successful and happy societies, of every stripe and color. Human society as a whole, however, must be able to deal with less than perfect behavior. In fact we should assume that people will do their best to connive, cheat and steal. We should assume some will inflict harm out of sadism, insanity, to compensate for feelings of inferiority, or any number of reasons which are irrational. At some point our system will be tested by these forces. Chris Edes > Nor is corruption an essential or necessary feature of a > socialist government. But it IS - always. > > If this discussion is about IDEAL government, then you are right > on all counts. But I thought it was about REAL government, which > includes that which government naturally devolves into. Will you > argue in support of the drug war because black markets are not an > essential or necessary feature? Of course you won't. > > ----------------------------------- > > Welfare policies are not essential or necessary features of > governments. > > Tim Starr >
