humans got here somehow, and i don't think we have evolved all that much to get rid of it

so perhaps just figure out smaller ways to do things better

like space flight is doing

i actually agree, i dont think simply removing government is a good idea. there needs to be a slow gradual careful replacement of public services with private ones, but only after the culture has shifted into emphasizing property and freedom principles

i dont think thats likely to happen for a couple of hundred years, maybe thousands

i would like to point out though, that the argument that you can flee the country if you dont want your rights violated isnt really a good positive defense of the status quo. but i dont think thats the argument you were making.

just saying

its not defending the status quote, but refuting the idea you have to be here

see, the problem i have with an-cap is the an part. because i don't see "the state" as anything really. outside a vague definition for authority. And that a parent commanding around a child is not really much different in than the state at the end of the day. its just a matter of scale

like the monopoly comment earlier.

if one person owns a small island, they have a monopoly of that island, and any person born there might dislike that

but just because the only surround area is water doesn't mean the current owner no longer has any rights to the land on the island

What I've been reading here seems like a good argument against anarchy.

Shall I count the ways?

1. The whole damn thing falls apart if the people involved are unprincipled.

2. Having your property to be determined by those around you seems like it would lend itself to cliques

3. Also, having a *commun*ity determine who gets what seems a little... red...

well theres nothing vague about the irs calling you and threatening to send the police for not paying for the police.

i agree that the government is a mind concept, but the problem is you have specific people with titles doing engaging in physical force due to their beliefs.

I'm a reformist, not an anarchist.

You won't get a disagreement from me when you say the system's broken

yes. but without the majority agreeing to be ruled by physical force, there is no state.

without the military, or the police, politicians have no power

right yes, i agree

But politicians have power because we have given it to them.

and if the people decide they no longer like the military or the police, they can and will fight. is it pretty? no. is it the best option, usually not.

We, as a society, can choose who we send forward.

but this is where moral and rightful an-cap arguments, imo, fall flat

The mere fact that we've been so neglectful in our choices

or the military and police can decide not to fight, it doesnt absolutely have to be a violent change

Is proof enough that the common will is not enough to rule.

an-caps have great arguments for lessoning government involvement.

NatSocs have great arguments for reducing crime rate.

Just because it's a great argument, doesn't mean it's right.

do they thought?

a violent overthrow wouldnt last anyways

An ethnic nationalist would say that certain ethnicities are more prone to violence and should be dealt with accordingly.

Strictly speaking, this WOULD lead to a decrease in crime

But there's a core issue that you could address instead.

Cultural, of course.

you know what would get ride of more crime? removing all people at the same economic level

Elimination of the lower class?