[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
It is not that hard. Governments attack each other because there is anarchy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because? I see it now... "Since there's no global overlord, we must attack other countries!" If they don't, then what happens?

Are you advocating a world government?

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, so the existence of government makes criminal activity impossible. I see. Those reports I see on TV and in the newspaper must be fabrications.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why can't you just mind your own business? If someone attacks, then act. Why *must* you act aggressively? Defense is not aggressive, BTW.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I envision a modern society where such weapons are not needed because there are no large governments that desire them. Wars, of course, can occur. When an aggressive force arises, people will voluntarily agree to vanquish it, since to do otherwise is unprofitable.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where do these progressively larger groups come from? Why, in the endgame, do these people recognize that killing is unproductive, but can't stop without putting someone in charge?

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is this? Why does killing continue? You're seriously arguing that these people who are killing other people for effectively no reason will recognize that the killing is pointless, will want to stop it, but just won't be able to make themselves do it? And the same goes for the people on the other side? Are they all compulsive murderers?

[ QUOTE ]
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!).

[/ QUOTE ]

Protection forces are not thugs.

[ QUOTE ]
The protection may rob the bank themselves,

[/ QUOTE ]

They won't be in the protection business very long.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where does this larger force come from? Who's funding it?

Notice that government isn't just a "protection" force, but also a robbery force, precisely because they don't have any "customers" that can go to the competition. They can rob all they want without facing market forces.

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Feudalism is a system where the liege can raise an army by decree. His vassals are obligated to provide forces upon demand (and each vassal's sub-vassals are similarly obligated to the vassal).

All of this was financed by production of the serfs.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I don't think large wars and armies are impossible without governments. However, they are extremely unlikely.

Think about it this way. If George W. Bush were the CEO of a defence protection company, would he be willing to invade Iraq? Even if he subjugates the entire country and takes all of the oil and other resources for himself, will he ever recoup the $80Billion/month (or whatever the number is) that he's spending to invade and hold the territory? How long would the board of directors allow him to continue this?

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

So in order to avoid small scale disputes, we must have ever-escalating large-scale disputes? Sounds like a winning system to me.

As you showed with your new orleans example, the government and their police forces is not what "keeps the populace in line". Police can't be everywhere at once. Private property owners are the primary force keeping order.

[ QUOTE ]
And I am not making a circular argument. Robbing banks is now not good because doing so will be met with swift punishment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait, I thought government punished bank robbers because robbing banks is bad. Now you're telling me that robbing banks is bad because governments punish it?

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. The government (which "I" have NOT put in place) really IS obviously not desirable for society as a whole.

[ QUOTE ]
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".

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Because your argument is "governments fight, destroy, pillage, etc." That's got to be the worst argument I've ever heard (and I've heard lots of bad ones).

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

How could anything be *worse* than the dystopia you are proposing? Constant large-scale warfare, but "security" at home, since you live in a total police state.