Of the assertions below, the only one I can say with certainty will happen, is that the power vacuum will be filled by a worse government. The problem with the agreements you propose below is not that they can't happen. It is that they wont work.
Whatever agreements are nobly forged, they inevitably become -- just like government -- instruments to be used by the corrupt. Their multiplicity will encourage conflict between them. People will find reasons to dispute as easily as they find water in the ocean. Most often, the unvoiced reason is the desire for wealth or property. A system designed to hold this tendency in check -- a Constitutional Republic with limited powers -- is better than just hoping for the best. Chris > I have noticed a recurring trend when dealing with those who insist on > promoting criminal protection rackets (Governments) as the only means > of avoiding chaos. As reliably as a wood-burning stove, they spout an > endless stream of worst-case scenarios that may come to pass without > "law": > > "Armed gangs will attack your house!" > > "Your women will be raped!" > > "The majority will oppress the minority!" > > "Justice will not be served!" > > "The power vacuum will be filled by a worse Government!" > > Of course, these blood-chilling threats are immediately followed by > the accusation that Anarchy cannot "guarantee" that these horrors will > not occur. > > Never is there any mention of how a criminal protection racket can > REALISTICALLY minimize these threats, or how it will not BECOME an > even bigger threat. > > More importantly, though, is the false dilemma that is presented here. > Apparently, I must choose between (a) a criminal protection racket or > (b) no protection at all. > > Why can't I VOLUNTARILY enter into agreements to protect my neighbors > in return for their promise to do the same? Why can't these sort of > agreements be extended to neighboring towns and regions? Couldn't > certain companies offer free protection services as a means of > advertising their paid services? > > Can anyone explain to me, without resorting to logical fallacy, why I > should be FORCED to pay for my own protection? > > --- Sasan
