: In Ari Armstrong's
Never heard of him, he is a 'big player' in the AC world? I prefer D Friedman, he doesnt pretend 'bad things wonrt happen' and looks at it more as economis decision making, off how he takes the 'rap', anyways.
: The idea that we can replace government with some kind of competing business in the use of force, is the idea of competing businesses in force, it's government by mafiosi
What makes you think that governments around the world arent competing 'defense agencies' - competing for 'customers' to keep them going (and holding them in or out with border controls) - that 'representative' democracy is any more (or indeed, more) effective in the US agency than the voices of one of these private agencies customers and shareholders would be in a 'free archy'?
'Free archy' sounds like a form of massively devolved 'government' to me, but one mediated by effective demand rather that 'born here? ok your ours'
: and what determines that you do is not your ethical objection to the "State," but rather your will to make profit as a business.
And you do this by 'pleasing customers' so unless a vast amount of people would support viciousness and injustice the idea of it all collapsing into chaotic gang fights seems far fetched.
what you would seem to offer in return? A very large agency given absolute power over a nation (or a world) and having various people 'represent' vast tracts of different people in the hope that it all evens out and doesnt get too bad (hmm, Waco), or the unlikely stateless-whatever version.
: What it really means is creating a society based on CO-OPERATION -- we can't, after all, agree on our rights without first co-operating with each other. It's also going to mean a society based on SHARING -- nobody is going to willingly agree to be destitute while others live in the lap of luxury. All of which implies a BETTER society, with less of the tough luck factor, than the one
hence my post to RD saying pretty much, neither option is likely to ever happen.
: Sorry, Armstrong, your expectations and reality are two different things. You may dream that there's no money in defending irrational, rights-violating people, but successful thieves will be able to pay for the defense of their loot.
He ought to admit that the present 'agency' in charge of the US and supposedly in receipt of direction from 'the people' is remarkebly adept at doing the above.
: The observant reader will note, here, that crime in any real society (excluding fantasy societies dreamt-up by anarcho-capitalists)
or stateless socialists
: was evidenced by the recent triumph of Red-Green coalitions in the French and German national elections.
Was it? Are green voters voting for the whole package - I suspect most dont know what the package is and a green vote is often a simple reaction to worries abounding in the media about 'the environment'. Are you sure that any 'red' vote is affirmation of sharing co operaive trends? not just people after a bit more personal safety from nasty happenings, or a bit more on their minimum wage (and if they consequently lose their job then a bit more unemployement benefit)? Is it really evidence of a new caring sharing age - or just more of that 'naughty' self interest?