Back to Constitutional Conservatism

[Juror No. 8]

Derp indeed mr rights exist even in the absense of something to enforce them.

Laws without anyone to enforce them aren't really laws anymore are they now?

Everyone and everything enforces natural law. If you lived on a jungle island without a government, and attempted to rob and maim an island villager, they'd fight for their life and attempt to take your own.

This is law enforcement. The enforcement of natural law. Nobody is just going to let you rape, rob, and kill them. People will enforce their rights with or without a government present.

Even if they are "natural".

And without a civilized framework for cooperation there are no armies, roads, specialized equipment, whatever.

Nonsense. There's nothing special about a government that allows the creation of roads and specialized equipment. The same goes for armies. People can voluntarily organize and pool their resources without creating a government monopoly on the use of aggressive force.

These things exist because of Government, not despite it.

LOL. These things exist because mankind has the ability to produce and create things. It's not like people would all of a sudden just stop producing and creating things because government disappeared. They would just keep on keeping on.

Government has no function in this regard.

And you still haven't made a case for your taxation as thievery, you just argue and make fun of others as if you had.

But fundamentally your argument is flawed because of this:

Because of what? You're not making any sense. The government has nothing without first stealing it from the people it purports to "represent". And it is theft, as the government takes with or without permission. In fact, the government will even kill to maintain its unlawful extortion racket. If you try to resist, they will open fire.

It's worse than theft, as theft doesn't necessarily imply the use of violent force. It's robbery. Plain old robbery.

That flies in the face of at least the last 100+ years of human financial systems.

What does? What is "that"? The last 100+ years of human financial systems has essentially revolved around debt-based monetary systems. Why? Because the government has no fucking money, that's why. The only money it has it what it steals through taxes, inflation, and what it can borrow, which just means the government has to tax and inflate even more later on to pay the principle + interest.

Also, you would be better served by acting less the scornful natural law adherent (wearing his personal philosophy like some kind of righteous armor) and spend more explaining what exactly you mean.

Because frankly, as a die hard Skeptic(tm), your natural law can kiss my Atheist ass.

I have explained natural law in basic terms. For all the rest you can crack a book or do a little research. Or you can read this:

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/tgif/obey-natural-law/

 

[Juror No. 8]

Having a feel-good concept, applying it to oneself, and declaring that it objectively possessed, does not give it external existence.

It has nothing to do with what I declare or you deny. It is what is. You can either choose to recognize it or ignore it, but it's still there.

Nature assigns no rights. It doesn't care if you're alive or dead -- it certainly doesn't care about behavior.

Nonsense. We are here and alive because we are supposed to be here and alive. If we were supposed to be dead or non-existent, then that's what we'd be. But we are alive. This is the natural state of affairs we find ourselves in. All of our instincts are geared towards preserving our life and those of our loved ones. Life is "right". Life is a human "right". It is a right because, as sentient beings, we are able to recognize this and recognize the rights of others. And we largely recognize the rights of others because it is in our best interest to do so, as the right to my own life is dependent on my recognizing your right to your life.

Yet funny how it doesn't work out that way at all. With no coercion to pay taxes, a percentage will try to get away with paying nothing and coast off the rest. The rest then withdraw their support so as not to be taken advantage of and shift their focus closer to home where their money is more likely to benefit them.

That sounds absolutely delightful. People focusing their efforts on a local level and interacting with those they actually know and care about, instead of worrying about what the people in a state 2,500 miles away are doing to each other.

With no taxation you're not going to go above village level. You are never going to get a million man standing army because with no structure that can coerce unity there's no trust in a future together.

Why would anyone want a million man standing army? Nothing good comes from having standing armies.

I see no reason a collection of villages with shared interests (like defense) can't organize a large, volunteer fighting force in the absence of government.

Anarchy will always break down on mistrust. "Is the guy who's helping me just waiting for his opportunity to stab me in the back? I'd better stab him first!"

Nonsense. If government doesn't break down on mistrust, then neither would anarchy.

Nobody has the right to simply stab someone just because he is paranoid.

This lack of unity means there'll be a lot of wasted replication of resources as you can't trust that a sharing arrangement will be honored when needed.

More nonsense. People can and will still contract with each other and form agreements through mutually agreed upon third party arbitrators and mediators. If you don't trust someone, you don't have to do business with them.

Very little will cross the village threshold because the "us vs them" mindset will treat anything that crosses it as an outside influence -- look at how local McDonald's are trashed whenever a country is pissed at the US. Owned by locals, staffed by locals, local food brought in using local transportation, yet when SHTF, it's "American." And that's with a steady nation-state identity and the bulwark of government!

You're referencing a reaction that takes place inside a system of governments, which all brainwash their citizens to be patriotic and nationalistic.

"This country wronged us! Let's boycott some of their corporations and shun them! French fries are now "freedom fries"! LOL! That will really show them!"

You're projecting your own nationalistic indoctrination onto decentralized anarchy.

A region of anarchy is going to be economically fucked through absence of trade, and the anarchy as such isn't going to last very long as they take on warlords to exploit those who haven't yet gotten themselves a warlord which will require everyone to have warlords in a governmental arms race, and this constant warring and insecurity is bad for any sort of real wealth generation.

Why would a region of anarchy have an absence of trade? If there are people present, they will both produce and consume goods and services. This will create demand. Demand will create more production. Excess production will be traded externally for external goods and services. Etc...

You're really not making a whole lot of sense with this warlord stuff.

Your isolated little African villages will not be able to stop an organized force.

Maybe, maybe not. Surely you aware there are also governments that sometimes can't stop organized forces either. Yes, sometimes even governments are overrun. However, this constant fear of being overrun by warlords, posses, bad guys, and governments is not a good enough excuse to become a warlord, posse, bad guy, or government yourself.

It seems like every excuse you have for creating government comes down to fear of one thing or another. Fear of bad people. Fear of catastrophe. Fear of war. Fear of invasion. Fear, fear, fear, fear, fear. And if you don't have something legitimate to fear, you'll simply manufacture it out of nothing. FEAR!

Do you know what kind of society you're going to create if it's based on nothing but fear? Consider some recent historical examples and give it some thought.

LOL, you really can't process anything, can you?
The setup of the world stage restricts us immensely. We have interests all over the world that would be hurt if we acted... like Republicans. Nations have an interest in their sovereignty being respected, and if we started on a rampage of conquering, the world's nation-states would array against us.

Interesting. So what you're saying is, the U.S. government can't pacify Afghanistan without ruining its reputation and jeopardizing its relationship with other nations? Wouldn't this work the same in anarchy? Wouldn't people be reluctant to go around murdering and stealing from each other out of fear for their reputation and relationships with everyone else?

Or does that conveniently only work under government?

If we lost cooperation and had to occupy and pacify every country that had what we wanted, we'd be looking at a HUGE expense just to stand still.

Let me guess. This too is only true under government? It doesn't apply to anarchy, right?

Afghanistan is a police action against the Taliban.

You mean, that's what you've been told. That's the sell job you've been sold. And, of course, you bought it.

We are not there to take them over or to pillage them. The image we need to maintain internationally doesn't allow us to rape their country or purge dissidents.

Wow, our government managed to eradicate the Nazi government in what, less than four years, but can't seem to get a handle on the lowly Taliban after 11 years? Not only that, but our casus belli for going after the Taliban was ten times better than the one we had for going after Nazi Germany. Do you honestly believe this stinking pile of horse shit you're pitching to me? That this whole thing is a "police action" that we just can't seem to take care of?

LOL. Dude, you're killing me with this shit. I'm losing I.Q. points talking to you. How can you take this stuff seriously?

This would not be the case in your hypothetical world of anarchy. There'd be nothing to bind your villages to the level of a nation, so no idea of national sovereignty. With that being the case, my singular nation could use the tools of empires and raiders of old.

Good point. So you'd invade, and without a centralized local government in place for you to take over and administer your occupation, you'd have to impose some sort of quasi-martial law over a bunch of lawless people who don't recognize you as a legitimate authority.

You'd dig a mine to exploit a resource and the locals would blow it up. You'd build a pipeline to deliver your oil to a port and it would "spring" a leak. You'd send out a squad to patrol the streets, and the only thing that would return are their heads in picnic baskets.

I'm sure your occupation would end well!

The purge of your village will serve as an object lesson to others.
That's just a response to your ridiculous proposition; in reality, its complete destruction likely wouldn't be needed. You're just naive and suffering from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False-consensus_effect

Wait, couldn't this apply to you as well? How do you know the people you are leading into war against a peaceful anarchic society will allow it? Maybe you're suffering from false-consensus effect? Maybe they will organize a coup and put you in jail for trying to wage a war of aggression against a trading partner.

LOL. Yeah, that kind of backfired on you a bit.

A people who can't even agree to form a working government are not going to agree on death in this matter. If you disagree, take up this challenge: Shoot yourself.
You are faced with the exact same conditions -- the threat of a government hanging over you. If you think that they would die rather than live under a government, do the same and die rather than live under ours.

Nonsense. I was born into this system, so I am not faced with losing my freedom, which never existed anyway.

There's nothing for me to gain by killing myself.

If you get uppity and plant IED's, We the People of the United States of America will kill you. You will not win. So show your resolve and join your hypothetical anarchist villager friends in death.

What's this "we" stuff? You won't do shit, because we both know you're a coward who'd rather watch rainbow pony anime cartoons from the comfort of your couch. After all, there are plenty of people planting IEDs in the Middle East. How come you're not over there playing cowboy with them? How come you're not over there in the shit?

We both know the answer. It's because you don't believe any of the bullshit you're saying here.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Everyone and everything enforces natural law. If you lived on a jungle island without a government, and attempted to rob and maim an island villager, they'd fight for their life and attempt to take your own.

Yes, humans are predicable. Makes them easy to control.
Shock and awe and pain compliance. Leads to submission in accordance with natural law. If they don't, you kill them in accordance with natural law as an object lesson.

This is law enforcement. The enforcement of natural law. Nobody is just going to let you rape, rob, and kill them. People will enforce their rights with or without a government present.

That is a government, just as the rapist/robber/killer is implementing government.
If you want to negate government you need to stop trying to govern people's actions. Government just leads to more government, ya' know.

Nonsense. There's nothing special about a government that allows the creation of roads and specialized equipment. The same goes for armies. People can voluntarily organize and pool their resources without creating a government monopoly on the use of aggressive force.

And people can slit their own throats.
Can != will.


Yay for freshmen economics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem

In economics, collective bargaining, psychology and political science, "free riders" are those who consume more than their fair share of a resource, or shoulder less than a fair share of the costs of its production. Free riding is usually considered to be an economic "problem" only when it leads to the non-production or under-production of a public good (and thus to Pareto inefficiency), or when it leads to the excessive use of a common property resource. The free rider problem is the question of how to prevent free riding from taking place (or at least limit its negative effects) in these situations.
In the context of labor unions, a free rider is an employee who pays no union dues or agency shop fees, but nonetheless receives the same benefits of union representation as dues-payers. Under U.S. law, unions owe a duty of fair representation to all workers that they represent, regardless of whether they pay dues. Some jurists[who?] have questioned the fairness, if not the legality, of this practice.
Free riding is also a term used by brokerages when a client purchases shares beyond his or her means. Free riders are those who purchase shares and then do not pay for them. (See margin.)
Contents [hide]
1 Politics
2 Bargaining
3 Example
3.1 Solution
3.2 Problems
4 See also
5 References
6 External links
[edit]Politics

A common example of a free rider problem is defense spending: No one person can be excluded from being defended by a state's military forces, and thus free riders may refuse or avoid paying for being defended, even though they are still as well guarded as those who contribute to the state's efforts. Therefore, it is usual for governments to avoid relying on volunteer donations, using taxes and, in some countries, conscription instead.
Government is indeed the primary mechanism by which societies address free rider problems. In addition to fiscal measures noted above, regulation is another form of collective action taken by governments to resolve free riders problems such as environmental degradation or excessive resource use.
The free rider problem is also one justification for the existence of governments which provide public goods. Some ideologies, such as libertarian capitalism, are often rebuked, because in such a system all property in a society would be privately owned, away from any state involvement or regulation. Libertarians[who?] counter that potential free riders within their system could face social ostracism, which may deter those who accept services without donating any payment for them. Libertarians stress that the need to healthily co-operate and interact with others in society would lessen the risk and likelihood of free riders.[citation needed]
[edit]Bargaining

The free rider problem has deep roots in more general bargaining, and issues to do with incentive compatibility. That is to say that, when involved in bargaining problems, players may often bid less than they are prepared to pay in the hope of improving their own position. This creates problems because it is impossible to discover the players' true demand payoff curves, and therefore inefficient allocation of resources is likely to ensue.
[edit]Example

Suppose there is a street, on which 25 people live, and which suffers from a litter problem. A weekly street-cleaning service would cost $2,500 annually. Suppose that each person is prepared (i.e., able and willing) to pay $100 or more for the benefit of a cleaner street.
If the service is engaged, everyone will benefit. However, it is possible that some people on the street will refuse to pay, anticipating that the service will be undertaken in any event.
Despite the fact they may be prepared to contribute $100, they will claim that they are not prepared to pay, and instead hope that others in the street will pay for the system anyway, and they receive the benefit for no personal expense.
The result is that it is possible no system will be installed, an example of market failure. This is despite the fact that allocative efficiency would be improved.

LOL. These things exist because mankind has the ability to produce and create things. It's not like people would all of a sudden just stop producing and creating things because government disappeared. They would just keep on keeping on.

Government has no function in this regard.

Wrong. Government provides a solid baseline of enforced, agreed-upon rules. Without this, the economy would be in shambles. Who would ever deposit money in a bank if there was nobody to tell them they had to give it back? Who would lend out for investment? If you have to hold to the threat of personal war, that's inefficient, and such a system rewards the professional con artist and the thieving bankster with the best defense.
Who is going to build a multimillion dollar structure if your rival can kill you and move in? You suddenly need an army defending everything of value. Oh, but if you have an army for defense, guess what else it can be used for? Why, attacking things with insufficient defense! So you have battles of private armies, shifting treaties as alliances are made and broken as the best plunder targets shift. Oh, and then you have the military coups, because why would a security chief work for peanuts when he can kill the fat cat and have the whole thing?

Organized government takes away "might makes right," in favor of rule of law. Laws are designed with government survival in mind -- government cannot be overly oppressive lest it invite its overthrow. It designs laws to be fair lest it lose its raison d'etre of being better and more efficient than the alternative. Fair laws can be agreed upon in light of the alternative (horrendously, retardedly inefficient anarchy) allowing for enforcement towards the uniform ideal with only a minimal security force. This is MUCH more efficient than an arms race between private armies bent on plunder.

Government works. Anarchy does not.

Because of what? You're not making any sense. The government has nothing without first stealing it from the people it purports to "represent". And it is theft, as the government takes with or without permission. In fact, the government will even kill to maintain its unlawful extortion racket. If you try to resist, they will open fire.

It's worse than theft, as theft doesn't necessarily imply the use of violent force. It's robbery. Plain old robbery.

1. Government is a very good thing.
2. People will sacrifice minor things to keep a very good thing.
3. A dissident who would act to impair the government for childish, self-centered reasons, being asymmetric to the ingroup and thus not having his punishment threaten to reflect, is a minor thing.

The free rider problem means that the People cannot risk a person reaping the benefits of their government without paying in.* The dissidents' "assurances" that they will not leech off the system cannot be trusted. But to assign a security force to oversee them is out of the question due to its expense -- you'd throw the efficiency gained by having a government right out the window if you needed to keep watch on every dissident. So instead we make good on the threats.
311,000,000 people > you. We will kill you rather than watch as you act as a seed for society's destruction.


(*inb4 poor people not paying taxes. That's a case of the system taking care of its own by adjusting for inequality, which is not the same as being leeched by outsiders.)

I have explained natural law in basic terms. For all the rest you can crack a book or do a little research. Or you can read this:

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/colu...y-natural-law/

It is a natural law that the majority power need not care what you think is a natural law.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Everyone and everything enforces natural law. If you lived on a jungle island without a government, and attempted to rob and maim an island villager, they'd fight for their life and attempt to take your own.

This is law enforcement. The enforcement of natural law. Nobody is just going to let you rape, rob, and kill them. People will enforce their rights with or without a government present.



Nonsense. There's nothing special about a government that allows the creation of roads and specialized equipment. The same goes for armies. People can voluntarily organize and pool their resources without creating a government monopoly on the use of aggressive force.



LOL. These things exist because mankind has the ability to produce and create things. It's not like people would all of a sudden just stop producing and creating things because government disappeared. They would just keep on keeping on.

Government has no function in this regard.



Because of what? You're not making any sense. The government has nothing without first stealing it from the people it purports to "represent". And it is theft, as the government takes with or without permission. In fact, the government will even kill to maintain its unlawful extortion racket. If you try to resist, they will open fire.

It's worse than theft, as theft doesn't necessarily imply the use of violent force. It's robbery. Plain old robbery.



What does? What is "that"? The last 100+ years of human financial systems has essentially revolved around debt-based monetary systems. Why? Because the government has no fucking money, that's why. The only money it has it what it steals through taxes, inflation, and what it can borrow, which just means the government has to tax and inflate even more later on to pay the principle + interest.



I have explained natural law in basic terms. For all the rest you can crack a book or do a little research. Or you can read this:

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/tgif/obey-natural-law/

Your natural law site isnt working, but from what you have been saying either natural law is divinely created or you believe might is right, none of which really support any of your arguments.

Im not going to go into a huge recap of the last 10000 years of human history for you but I think I can safely assert that without humans banding together to create excess food supplies -- and the means to share and protect them aka roads and armies -- you and I wouldnt be sitting here arguing on the internet.

And governments can print money.

 

[Juror No. 8]

Your natural law site isnt working...

Works for me.

...but from what you have been saying either natural law is divinely created or you believe might is right, none of which really support any of your arguments.

Both conclusions are false.

Im not going to go into a huge recap of the last 10000 years of human history for you but I think I can safely assert that without humans banding together to create excess food supplies -- and the means to share and protect them aka roads and armies -- you and I wouldnt be sitting here arguing on the internet.

Humans can create excess food supplies, roads, and armies without creating a government. Government is not a prerequisite to people producing and creating stuff. After all, if human beings need a government in place before they can produce and create stuff, how did they ever manage to produce organized government in the absence of organized government?

And governments can print money.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Printing money doesn't create wealth, it only dilutes wealth. Were you under the impression that the government creates all wealth in an economy by simply pressing the 'print' button? That government paper represents wealth instead of all the goods and services within an economy?

 

[Juror No. 8]

Yes, humans are predicable. Makes them easy to control.
Shock and awe and pain compliance. Leads to submission in accordance with natural law. If they don't, you kill them in accordance with natural law as an object lesson.

Sounds like something Joe Stalin would have said.

I wonder if your politics are any different than his?

That is a government, just as the rapist/robber/killer is implementing government.

Of course. Everything and everyone is a government. Everything they do is also government.

This sounds like the same kind of thing Christians say: "God is in everything! God is in everything we do! God is all around us!"

Just replace 'God' with 'Government' and it's easy to see you're just another religious holy roller.

If you want to negate government you need to stop trying to govern people's actions. Government just leads to more government, ya' know.

According to your logic, though, that would be impossible, because all human actions are a form of government. So even if I do nothing at all, there will still be government as long as humans exist.

And people can slit their own throats.
Can != will.

Why would you equate people with voluntarily coming together to pool their resources with cutting their own throats? I thought you believed it was necessary for people to come together in such a way. Now you say it's akin to committing suicide.

Which is it? You're all over the map.

Yay for freshmen economics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem

A relatively minor but not insurmountable problem.

Wrong. Government provides a solid baseline of enforced, agreed-upon rules.

Clearly this is incorrect, as plenty of people don't agree with the rules.

Like me, for instance.

Without this, the economy would be in shambles.

LOL.

Who would ever deposit money in a bank if there was nobody to tell them they had to give it back?

LOL, so only a government can tell a bank not to rob people? OK, then, what happens when your banks get control of the government? Who's going to tell the banks not to rob people then?

Who would lend out for investment? If you have to hold to the threat of personal war, that's inefficient, and such a system rewards the professional con artist and the thieving bankster with the best defense.

Government is far more inefficient and a far bigger waste of resources, but that doesn't seem to bother you very much, so why would inefficiency bother you under anarchy?

Who is going to build a multimillion dollar structure if your rival can kill you and move in?

If someone can afford to build a multimillion dollar structure, he can probably also afford some security.

You think?

You suddenly need an army defending everything of value.

LOL, right. People who wish to protect stuff can't hire a large security force on the private market. Instead, they have to create individual armies to protect every single installation.

LOL.

Oh, but if you have an army for defense, guess what else it can be used for? Why, attacking things with insufficient defense! So you have battles of private armies, shifting treaties as alliances are made and broken as the best plunder targets shift. Oh, and then you have the military coups, because why would a security chief work for peanuts when he can kill the fat cat and have the whole thing?

They same things happen under governments. Governments attack each other, alliances and treaties shift, countries are plundered, and military commands carry out coups. In fact, we almost had one in this country back in 1933.

If government supposedly solves this problem, why hasn't it solved this problem yet?

LOL.

Organized government takes away "might makes right," in favor of rule of law.

LOL, since when? Somebody should have told Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, and communist China. Clearly they didn't get your memo.

Laws are designed with government survival in mind -- government cannot be overly oppressive lest it invite its overthrow.

More LULZ. The opposite is true. The more oppressive a government is, the greater chance it has to prevent overthrow.

It designs laws to be fair lest it lose its raison d'etre of being better and more efficient than the alternative. Fair laws can be agreed upon in light of the alternative (horrendously, retardedly inefficient anarchy) allowing for enforcement towards the uniform ideal with only a minimal security force. This is MUCH more efficient than an arms race between private armies bent on plunder.

If this is true, and governments prevent arms races, why do governments spend billions upon billions of dollars trying to one-up each other in military arms races?

Government works. Anarchy does not.

LOL, where has government ever worked? Society is falling apart all around us. The U.S. is in decay. The evidence can't be any more plain.

1. Government is a very good thing.

What's "good" about a people possessing a monopoly on the use of aggressive force against other people? I thought you Leftists were opposed to monopolies?

2. People will sacrifice minor things to keep a very good thing.

Including each other.

3. A dissident who would act to impair the government for childish, self-centered reasons, being asymmetric to the ingroup and thus not having his punishment threaten to reflect, is a minor thing.

What does this have to do with anything?

Taxation is still theft. You can't talk your way out of it.

The free rider problem means that the People cannot risk a person reaping the benefits of their government without paying in.*

So then why force him to accept the benefits? Why not make the benefits of government a voluntary choice?

The dissidents' "assurances" that they will not leech off the system cannot be trusted. But to assign a security force to oversee them is out of the question due to its expense -- you'd throw the efficiency gained by having a government right out the window if you needed to keep watch on every dissident. So instead we make good on the threats.
311,000,000 people > you. We will kill you rather than watch as you act as a seed for society's destruction.

You would have made a fine kommissar in the old Soviet Union.

"Worship government, or else!"

LOL.

(*inb4 poor people not paying taxes. That's a case of the system taking care of its own by adjusting for inequality, which is not the same as being leeched by outsiders.)

How can you "adjust for inequality" by making people unequal in the eyes of the tax man? Equality is making everyone pay the same tax rate. Unless you're making everyone pay the same tax rate, you're essentially practicing discrimination.

It is a natural law that the majority power need not care what you think is a natural law.

Incorrect again, as the whims of the majority have no bearing on natural law.

 

[Munky]

There is no need to go back to the 18th century.

Yah, because in the 18th century the ghetto welfare queens and illegal mexicans would have had to actually work for a living instead of mooching off others. Oh, the horror! The post-modern, uber-enlightened liberal would have none of that.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

News flash Munky, everyone was an illegal during the 18th century.

Ghetto welfare queens....thanks for the laugh!

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Works for me.

Both conclusions are false.

Humans can create excess food supplies, roads, and armies without creating a government. Government is not a prerequisite to people producing and creating stuff. After all, if human beings need a government in place before they can produce and create stuff, how did they ever manage to produce organized government in the absence of organized government?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Printing money doesn't create wealth, it only dilutes wealth. Were you under the impression that the government creates all wealth in an economy by simply pressing the 'print' button? That government paper represents wealth instead of all the goods and services within an economy?

Well run governments have always provided the framework for wealth creation, whether it be printing money, putting in roads, or defending its freedom loving citizens. If all you are aiming for is survival then fine, you dont need a government.

Anyhoo...

Site is finally working.

Its an interesting site, and interesting questions are asked.

But it is truly magical thinking to believe that -- and I repeat, flies in the face of all of human history -- that benevolent self interest will lead to improvement of the human condition, that somehow we all inherently know justice from injustice, law from unlawful etc etc etc

But I can see how this type of magical thinking would allow one to believe that because taxation isnt needed (we will build these roads as a community...somehow!), it therefore must be wrong...it ias an unjust law, because we inherently know so.

Well I call BS on that. Well you dont inherently know it to be unjust, it just feels that way, and you want it be. And lo and behold, we have natural to make it so!