I've lately thought that on Mon, 22 Mar 1999, Billy Brown wrote:
>mark@unicorn.com wrote:
>You might expect the existence of an armed populace to make a difference,
>but it doesn't. History has many, many examples of armed populations and
It does? I only know of a few in which the entire population was well-armed, and they mostly seem to be libertarian places...
>> Why would you have to pay? If you don't want police 'protection' you just
>> buy a gun or two and protect yourself. That's not an option in a
>> government
>> system... and anyway, private protection will be a lot cheaper than
>> compulsory tax-funded government 'protection'.
>
>This is the kind of naiveté that gives anarcho-capitalism a bad name. You
>can't protect yourself. If you aren't signed up with a PPA, you are a
>legitimate target for anyone who finds it worthwhile to rob, kill and/or
>enslave you. If significant numbers of people choose this option, some
>organization will soon develop to exploit their lack of protection. Any
>such group will quickly learn how to field trained, organized teams of
>soldiers to do their dirty work, which means a lone man with a gun is
>essentially helpless.
>> Sorry? What? Huh? Where do you get that idea from?
>
>>From my definitions - I'm comparing the ideal anarcho-capitalist society
>with an ideal limited government. An ideal limited government would have
>laws against theft, fraud, assault, murder, and a few other such crimes,
>plus tax evasion. A typical PPA would have a similar code, minus the tax
>evasion (but if you don't pay up, you loose your protection). The anarchist
>approach gives you some options on the details, but there is no reason for
>the big picture to differ by much.
As long as the bosses are willing to violate rights by stea--taxing, what possible reason for not infringing "just a little more" could they have? This is the difference between customers and subjects.
>> >Those who have power take whatever they want
>> >from those who don't, which results in a society with all the problems of
>> >despotism and none of the advantages.
>>
>> Only if you assume that a couple of hundred million well-armed anarchists
>> are just going to stand aside and hand over their money to a few thugs.
>
>I'm not assuming, I'm quoting history. The well-armed citizens *are* the
>thugs. On of the most perverse effects of simple anarchy is that it gives
>everyone strong incentives to act like a criminal, and punishes those who do
>not.
You seem to be implicitly assuming that only a few are really well-armed...
-- Wolfkin. wolfkin@freedomspace.net | Libertarian webhost? www.freedomspace.net On a visible but distant shore, a new image of man; The shape of his own future, now in his own hands.-- Johnny Clegg.