[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
I am not advocating this as a system, but rather, showing why governments are necessary. If it was up to me, there would be no violence and we can all hold hands together and share everything in peace.

The existence of government sets up a system where criminals are punished, leading to less crime.

[/ QUOTE ]

You assume that there's no way to punish people without a government.

[ QUOTE ]
You cannot mind your own business. Those that mind their own business will be killed by those that do not mind their own business.

[/ QUOTE ]

Minding your own business is not ignoring threats. You proposed a system of constant pre-emptive strikes, basically killing anyone that might attack you at any point in the future. That's plainly a -EV strategy. You can mind your own business and still be vigilant and have security. You're trying to create a false dichotomy, and doing a poor job.

[ QUOTE ]
Governments are PEOPLE. Governments do not desire anything, they are a concept, not something physical. People make up governments. People desire weapons to kill you. They will always want to kill you because that is what people do. Just because they are not called "the government", that does not mean they are any less bloodthirsty.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you propose to give these bloodthirsty people the machinery of government so they may take their bloodlust to new levels?

[ QUOTE ]
They cannot stop without putting somebody in charge because there would be nobody to enforce an agreement. Agreeing to be friends only lasts as long as it takes for you to want to shoot me in the head.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why does there have to be someone "in charge" to enforce agreements? I enter into an agreement with another private individual. Why are we incapable of mutually deciding, as part of our agreement, how disputes will be settled and who will settle them? Why is a monopoly arbitrator necessary or even an improvement on us picking our own dispute resolution?

[ QUOTE ]
Killing is not pointless, it is for the same reasons that we kill now. Food, resources, land, money, and hot chicks.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, you can obtain control of resources this way. However, it's pretty obvious that in almost all cases war is a prohibitively expensive way of obtaining resources.

[ QUOTE ]
The government is the largest force, I thought we went over this already. You say they are a robbery force, that is your opinion and not the point of any of this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Governments are funded by coercion. That is EXACTLY the point. Any organization that is voluntarily funded will not engage in warfare because they won't be able to fund their operations very long.

[ QUOTE ]
That's right. In feudalism, one guy with land would give it out to people in exchange for military servitude. Effectively, paying for an army out of his pocket.

[/ QUOTE ]

But his "pocket" is lined with production that is gained from, effectively, slavery.

[ QUOTE ]
Board of directors? We elect most government officials, so therefore the citizens are the board of directors are they not? If we REALLY did not want to be in Iraq, then we wouldn't be.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how I can make it any plainer. You're completely ignoring the profit/loss aspect that W would face as a CEO that he DOESN'T have to face as CIC.

[ QUOTE ]
Again, this is not a "system", but rather, what logically follows. I wish people wouldn't kill each other and that government not be necessary. Alas, I don't live in a dreamworld. If owners of property were really the primary protectors of order, then there would not be any police since they would not be necessary. I see police, so I can therefore assume that the police are pointless and exist due to some ancient conspiracy (your argument), or that they serve at least some purpose in maintaining order.

[/ QUOTE ]

So why then, when the police stayed and the property owners left, did New Orleans descend into chaos? You yourself provided the example that disproves your own theory.

[ QUOTE ]
Society as a whole does not want banks to be robbed. Government punishes bank robbers.
Less bank robbers because it is -EV.
Is this hard?

[/ QUOTE ]

And without government, bank owners would just roll over and let people rob banks with impunity?

[ QUOTE ]
Now, think about it. What possible purpose can governments serve that is not protecting the citizens? There are no other reasons. The only thing a government does is protect the welfare of its citizens.

[/ QUOTE ]

Protect their welfare by stealing their money, starting wars, restricting liberty? They're doing an amazing job.

[ QUOTE ]
What you cannot seem to comprehend is that people kill. Governments do not kill, people kill. Always have, and probably always will. How do you propose that be stopped?

[/ QUOTE ]

Governments give these people methods to kill a lot more people than they'd ever be able to kill acting alone. You don't stop criminals by giving them methods to committ ever-larger crimes.