Victor, You're not stating the problem in its simplest form. Violation of our natural rights is the problem, when you state the problem in its simplest form. Government is merely one arena or venue in which this occurs.
Under anarchy, our natural rights would *still* be violated. We would not call the violators government, but that is of no comfort. Anarchy WILL NOT stop human beings from trying to oppress each other. It will only change the ways by which they can successfully carry out their oppression. The majority of people will always tend to have more wealth and power, than the minority. They will always be motivated to use this power to oppress the minority. If there is no Law or Constitution to uphold individual rights, with enforcement power, no one can intervene and the tyranny of the majority has free reign. Or, military rule can arise. An army has an advantage over civilians, no matter how well armed the latter group. Civilians must work and raise families, and this takes time and energy. An army of young men doesn't need to work or get married. They can steal the wealth of others and rape the women. Such an army can focus entirely on oppression and coercion. These are the reasons that we establish governments. So that the rule of the mob, whether manifest as majority tyranny, or mafia tyranny, can be kept in check by something which is less burdensome. Such as constitutional representative government. This idea that ending government will somehow end all oppression and tyranny, is a matter of faith. I prefer not to govern on faith, but rather by reason. Chris Edes more comments below > "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 cancer is the violation of our rights. Anarchy would replace one set of violations with another set of violations. There is no cure, other than extinction of the human species. Which is like throwing out the baby with the bathwater. So rather than search for an unattainable cure, we should look to minimize the symptoms. > 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. > Correct, and those many have good, solid, pro-Liberty reasons for their belief. > 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??? > A business is also bad at providing welfare, but good at making money. A charity is good at providing welfare. Different kinds of organization are good at different tasks. Is this really difficult for you to understand? > "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." > Yes, and the Free Market will be restrained and hobbled under anarchy, much more so than under a minimal government. Therefore, it will not provide the same choice and quality of solutions, as it would under the auspices of a Rule of Law based on natural rights. > 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? > Yes, and most of those would be socialist, coercive options. You are dreaming if you think under anarchy, people will not try to gain power, as they do today. > 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? > It's not unreasonable, but why would all these options be good ones, and voluntary rather than imposed? Why would they not be bad options which take choice away? Chris Edes > 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] >> >> > > > > ------------------------------------ > > ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
