[XxGodJrxX]

It is not that hard. Governments attack each other because there is anarchy. If all of a sudden, God came out and said "the next one that attacks another dies and goes to hell", there would be no more war. There would be no more war, since the anarchy disappeared. As citizens, that is what the government does to us. If I kill you, then I can expect to be executed or be put in prison for a very long time.

Anarchy DOES force people to act aggressively. Let put it to you this way: once there is no more government to stop me, I can go ahead and kill you PVN. Now, what are you going to do? Are you going to stand there and die or are you going to try to kill me? Choice is yours, but there seems to me that there is only one logical course of action you can take.

I never said that destruction is not caused by governments. Obviously destruction is caused by government for various reasons. The problem with your argument is that you are not thinking big enough or far enough. Your idea of anarchy seems to me to be of a prehistoric society where big weapons do not exist and big wars cannot occur. Street brawls evolve into street wars, and they keep evolving from there.

Here is a timeline of how I think it would happen

I kill a guy, take his wallet.
Guy's family comes and kills me.
Another larger group kills them.
A larger group is formed in reaction to the threat.
Multiple groups begin forming in order to protect themselves from the ever-increasing threat.
Groups go around killing each other for resources and land, in order to be able to gain an edge.
Eventually, people get tired of living in fear of death constantly, so the groups come together and form a pact.
The pact is that they agree to lay down their arms, and put their trust into a few that will ensure that the killing within themsleves will stop.

If no government is formed, then the killing would simply continue and people will get more and more desperate and afraid of dying. The super-group may have to fight with other large groups (wars), but at least they know that they do not have to fear each other.



You only prove my point about banks not being able to operate without government. Banks need protection, that is a fact, otherwise they will be robbed. Without government, banks need to get their own protection (THUGS!). The protection may rob the bank themselves, or they may not be big enough to take on a large force that is bent on robbing the bank. The bank needs protection from the largest possible force available, or risk being robbed. Since, without government, there is no largest force to protect banks, then they can not operate profitably.

Armies cannot be hired out of pocket? Maybe you should look up "feudalism" in a dictionary.

What you are basically saying is that without government, large wars and armies cannot exist. I contend that they can, and inevitably will to meet the needs of protection against ever increasing threats. With governments, there is still constant fighting with other nations as one large army, since the world is still anarchic in nature. The difference is that we do not fight amongst ourselves, so we are able to live longer and happier.

And I am not making a circular argument. Robbing banks is now not good because doing so will be met with swift punishment. The swift punishment comes from the government that we have put in place in order to protect us from such things as bank robberies, which is obviously not desirable for society as a whole.

I am making a big case for why governments are necessary, and you can only say "you are making a good argument for no statism". The reason you do so is because you can't come up with a logical progression on how anarchy would work, and instead insist that the government is a thief and that it is immoral. I want to hear PRACTICAL reasons on how anarchy would work better than a government. I myself am not a fan of large or powerful governments, but I am a realist, and can accept the fact that governments are necessary.