gluke bastid said:

anyone420 said:

I think your wrong. I do not need, nor want any government services. I do not want their protection.

---

You don't want roads or schools or libraries or energy for your home or laws that ensure that other people can't cheat you out of money or steal from you or infect you with disease or murder you?

Ok, well I guess you could disappear and live in a cave somewhere and not be a member of a society that relies on government.

Except your best bet for living in a cave would be to go to a state or national park, because these are the only places not open to private development so you'd still be sucking on the govment's teet. Plus the fact that without the government some corporation could probably save millions by dumping unregulated radioactive waste into your cave.

And say you lived with a bunch of other cave dwellers. I am pretty sure that if one of them started hoarding all of the food you would find some way or another of preventing them from doing so, whether it was pre-emptive or disciplinary. And you would probably at some point realize that you could all have more food if you pooled your resources, hunted as a group, and shared the product of the hunt more or less collectively. Boom, all of a sudden you have a collectivist society, a small scale form of government.

I don't know. It just seems like an intellectual cop-out to totally reject a government that you are still dependent upon, because its easier to reject a complicated system outright than admitting that said system, although corrupt, has clear cut benefits for you and that if you were more hard working and active you could actually affect change at least on a small level.

---

anyone420 said:

of course roads and libraries are the first thing anyone mentions as a necessary function of government. those could easily be provided by the market place, in the absence of a government, do a little research on it.

---

Quote:

i reject government because government is force. government operates on the threat of violence, and this is wrong. i support freedom, not serfdom.

saying i should go live in a cage is pretty wack man, were the american revolutionaries that fought for independence a cop out? the spirit of the founding principles of the united states is that each person is entitled to their lives, and anything they see fit for their lives as long as they harm no others. your collectivist mentality is a bit skewed i think.

---

Quote:

you act as if everyone would be back in the stone age without government and its just incorrect, the market would still exist, life would go on as usual, we just wouldn't have an overbearing mommy telling us what not to do

---

anyone420 said:

traditional liberals did believe in these things but modern liberalism is nothing remotely similar, it is just moralists seeking to impose their beliefs on others via government

besides, i'm more of an anarcho capitalist than a libertarian, theres distinct differences

---

That's funny, John Locke is known as the father of modern liberalism.  Anarchism is not far from liberalism and "distinct differences" between anarcho capitalists and libertarians seems pretty damn nitpicky, I would say the two ideologies are within a stone's throw from one another.

But whatever, everybody gets to pick their own labels, it wouldn't be any fun otherwise.

anyone420 said:

roads and libraries could be provided by a market entity, in which those who wish to use said product would pay a price, just like anything else in the market. 

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/woods-d1.html

---

Link lead to an opinion piece on why it would it preferrable to hand over the building of roads to private companies which could in turn charge us as much as they would like for use of their tolls. (Ironically the author complains about pollution emitted by cars but then attacks the government for regulating fuel emissions ) I wonder who would protect these road builder's right to charge us astronomical fees without a government in place? I also see no evidence in the article to suggest that privatized roads wouldn't go the direction of other privated industries such as energy...in other words more expensive for the consumer, less efficient, and ultimately landing in the hands of one massive corporation that is able to monopolize the road building industry by buying out the competition, and then using their unchallenged status as the sole road builder to charge whatever they please. I'd rather pay taxes. Again, this is my idle speculation against yours, but mine makes more sense to me. Some evidence to the contrary, instead of an op-ed article, would go a long way.

Quote:

monopolies are regulated by the market place, and modern monopolies only exist as a result of direct government regulation.

---