[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that the most destruction has been caused by governments only proves that I am right.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that governments wontonly destroy proves that you're right? Wait, what exactly are you right about? Are you saying that this destruction shows that government is a good thing?

[ QUOTE ]
There are two reasons for this. One, although there are governments that prevent anarchy, there is no governing body for governments, meaning that the world is still anarchic in nature. Nothing prevents wars from breaking out. Obviously, on an international scale, there is a lot of destruction, and it is caused by the inherint anarchy of the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's caused by governments. Anarchy doesn't force anyone to act aggressively.

[ QUOTE ]
Now, imagine that same destruction and chaos within a state.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have to imagine it. I just turn on my TV and see it. It's all caused by governments. Within a state, in civil war, the carnage seems to be worse.

If you're saying we'd have carnage on the same scale without governments, I say you're totally nuts. Who is going to build up huge armies and large-scale weapons of mass destruction? You might (*might*) get more street brawls, but you'll have fewer Antietams, Tiananmen Squares, and Nagasakis.

[ QUOTE ]
This brings me to my second point. Remember New Orleans after Katrina? I remember hearing about lots of looting, rapes, and general killing. That happened because there was few police officers to stop them. You say that military can work without government, but instead you will get what you got in NO, Roaming gangs that are out strictly for themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

New Orleans had the same government and police force before Katrina that they had after Katrina. There wasn't anarchy in New Orleans, there was chaos - they had all the "archy" they wanted, and more. The difference in New Orleans before and after the storm is that the *property owners* were not present. They were forced out by the government (mandatory evacuation) and those that did stay behind to defend their property were treated as criminals (cf. government roundups of guns, etc).

[ QUOTE ]
Now, banks may be made by people, but the only reason they can safely exist is with protection. If there is no protection from bank robbers, then there are no banks; they will go out of business. If there are private means of enforcement, like you say there should be, then that can only lead to those groups either taking over the banks or fighting other banks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? Such action would be unprofitable. Would you do business with a bank run by known thugs?

[ QUOTE ]
You will have a real mob rule, and by mob, I mean in a mafia sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting. The mafia only exists to fill markets that are restricted by government. Without government, the mafia disappears.

[ QUOTE ]
I would love to hear your argument for NO statism.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've presented a wonderful case for no statism. I'm not sure I could improve upon it.

[ QUOTE ]
We is the people. In theory, government's are formed by social contract.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh. Where is this contract? I'm pretty sure I didn't sign it.

[ QUOTE ]
I never said cooperation is not possible without government. People will cooperate and fight each other for land, food, weapons, etc. In the end, this does equal "ultimate domination", and you like to put it. What I think you are saying is that people will cooperate out of the goodness of their hearts, and I HIGHLY disagree with any such notion.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I think they will cooperate because doing so is more profitable than fighting. Fighting, especially on a large scale, is mainly an endeavor of ego, enabled by the crime of taxation (and inflationary counterfeiting). Nobody that is paying with their own money out-of-pocket is going to be able to hire huge armies on the free market, or at least, they won't be able to do so profitably.

[ QUOTE ]
People die within governments, but they certainly live longer. The average age that a person lives now is around 78 years old or so. How long will it be when there is constant fighting?

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, why is there constant fighting? Isn't that what we have now?

[ QUOTE ]
As a philosopher once said, life would be "nasty, brutish, and short".

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems to me that many initiatives to extend human life are actively opposed by governments. I don't see how you're coming to this conclusion.

[ QUOTE ]
The majority of the people created the government. The ones that did not want in, stayed out, and were killed off by a government or within themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what? It's the same "the existence of the status quo justifies the status quo" argument. A majority of people decided to enslave a minority. Is there no deeper significance for you?

[ QUOTE ]
"Wow. The status quo is always correct by virtue of the fact that it is the status quo. This is really amazing stuff."

Sorry, I do not know what this means, nor what it has to do with my example of robbing banks being -EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

It means you're making a circular argument. "Robbing banks is bad because the government says robbing banks is bad. What the government says is bad is bad because the government says so." You end up right where you started.