"Simply pointing out a problem doesn't make your solution the right one."
It does when the problem is I have cancer and the Minarchist/Constitutionalist absurdly asks,"But what would you replace it with??" The author is correct in stating "that many of those who claim to favor liberty still stop short of fully accepting the conclusion of their own premises: that government is inefficient and operates via aggressive means." This is not mere opinion but fact. If Government is horrible at educating my kids, providing welfare to the indigent, providing Health Care to the sick, and so on adinfitim then how is this same inefficient apparatus suddenly blessed with good judgement when it comes to determining the quality and quantity of justice, police, and defense individuals may need??? The answer is obvious.... It has no more good judgement on these items than anything else because being a Monopolist means never having to produce anything of value or we would voluntarily pay for it. As I said in a previous posting in a different forum: As this wise young man said in this video I recently emailed to several friends: "When the Free Market is allowed to create a solution, as it mostly is for Computers, The Internet, and Food, it responds with an abundance of products, in a number of differentiating ways, with lots of choices and additional services." "When the Government handles food, you get bread lines, and of course, men with guns." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yxjNAt_Jdk If we simply use this as a REAL LIFE example (not theory) is it really unreasonable to conclude that absent a State monopoly in these services we would have an abundance of options for Defense, Law, and Police as well? So the real question which all Anarchists ask those who do not agree with them is as follows: Would society be better off without a State? Clearly we are better off when they mostly don't interfere with the provision of Computers, The Internet, and food. Is it really a stretch to think that we'd be better off if we had an abundance of options for Defense, Law, and Police? I really don't think so. P --- In [email protected], Chris Edes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This is just one guy stating his beliefs. He says "why not", "I > believe" and "it seems to me". Yet, he doesn't advance any arguments or > present proof. In what situations would the absence of government > produce better results, and how? Simply pointing out a problem doesn't > make your solution the right one. > > Chris > > > > > « Those Wacky CATO Protesters | LRC Blog | LRC Home | Arthur McBride Lyrics » > > > > August 01, 2008 > > To Secure These Rights? > > Posted by Manuel Lora at August 1, 2008 01:38 PM > > > > The state fails to do even the things that its supporters claim it should do: the protection of our rights. Take a look at this story or this one or this one --these abominations represent the complete collapse of the concepts of "justice" and "defense" and "protection." In true Orwellian fashion, justice now means plunder, defense means offense and protection means aggression. > > > > To the radical libertarian, the above headlines are, while shocking, not really surprising. What does surprise is that many of those who claim to favor liberty still stop short of fully accepting the conclusion of their own premises: that government is inefficient and operates via aggressive means. If we claim that the state should not be engaged in education because the result is monstrous, why not, then, apply the same reasoning to other functions that the state performs, such as defense and protection and law and courts? We oppose state education, state entertainment and every other state industry but when it comes to police and justice and law, many --too many-- give their consent and support! > > > > It seems to me that the classical libertarians (such as minarchists and constitutionalists) have made a terrible mistake. They have taken the most important of institutions, namely the protection of our rights, and given them to the monopolist. I believe that, if it were possible, it would be preferable to have the government take care of things like entertainment and toilets instead of the "slightly" more important functions of defense and law. > > > > Ultimately, the state cannot be reformed and the political system can only do so much. Indeed, nothing short of the abolition of statist politics --of the state itself-- is acceptable to the radical libertarian. If the government isn't fit to be my janitor or educator, it is not fit to be my police, my judge, my jury, president, prosecutor or legislator. > > > > Says Thoreau: That government is best which governs not at all; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. > > > > The freedom revolution begins with one's consent. Withdraw it. It's time. > > > > > > Reddit . Digg this . Stumble It . Shout It . Add to Mixx . Discuss on Newsvine > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >
