Zack Bass wrote: > --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, "Gary F. York" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I think you'll agree that there are a lot of people out there who want >> to capture the government and use the power of the governmental fist to >> make you (and others) behave as they wish. >> >> > > And if it is not Government, but a Justice Agency, they will still do > the same thing under AnCap. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. > > >> If you'll notice; that's exactly, _exactly_ what >> you want to do. You just have your own opinion of >> who and when the governmental fist should hit. >> Other people want to use the government as a tool >> to protect them from you; you want to use the >> government as a tool to protect you from them. >> >> > > Not at all! I want The Agency to enforce NAP, that is, to protect > peaceful people from Initiation Of Force; THEY want to Initiate Force. > BIG difference! > Not different at all. You want the government to make everyone behave as _you_ believe they ought. You want government to make them honor your 'right' to kill people who tick you off by violating their contracts with you. (Ok -- Kevin.) You want everyone to play by _your_ rules and use your definition of what is right and honorable. You don't seem to want the hassle of first persuading them that your way is right.
It is one thing to be left alone. Fine. I'm sure there are any number of places left, right here on Earth, where you can still be left _entirely_ alone. Turns out that few people actually find that prospect enchanting. Or even workable. That leaves the delights and dangers of bothering (and being bothered) by others. And of working out some mutually acceptable (rules, guidelines, codes of behavior, laws -- pick one) which allow each of us to extract maximum delight and minimum danger from that association. We libertarians tend to think the NAP would be a really nifty guideline (law, code, etc.). It is, granted, a major departure from the past. It's untried, unproven, no one knows how it would work out in practice; still, we think it would be way cool. It's ironic, really. You have no chance whatever of getting a government, whether town, city, state, or national to implement NAP exactly _as you would wish_. None. But in an anarchy, there's a least a modest chance that you could find enough like-minded souls who would be willing to pay a protection agency to implement NAP _for your group_ in that fashion. Yet you prefer to dream of a governmental solution. A tip. Governments are run by men. (Ok, humans and maybe AI's one day.) Governments tend to implement policies, rules, laws and provide solutions which benefit, wait for it, those who run governments. Always have; always will. G.
