ClumsyMonkey.net

i don't get it, why do you assume that in order for a stateless society to prosper, everybody has to be nice to eachother?

the law does not prevent murder, theft, rape, assault or any of the other forcible actions people take against one and other.

if a person tries to kill me while i am walking home tonight, the law does not reflect the bullets fired from his gun. my only hope of survival here is my own self defense. ultimately, that is the only hope of crime prevention anyone ever has, there is no other way to prevent crime.

punishment for infringements on the rights of people would still exist in an anarchist society. therefore, there is no difference between the way a state handles criminals and the way a stateless society would.

maybe if tommorow we overthrew government and instituted self-rule, the price of certain services would go up because regulation forces the firms to operate at a loss. healthcare is one such service.

but over time, with continued profit being generated by the firms in the healthcare market, new and more cost efficent ways of delievering the service would be researched and invented. the long term effect would be the overal cost of healthcare going down.

i do not disagree with your position on corporate government. it is very much a reality in our world. it is of course not one i support.

with respect to your position on the high moral standard required to live in anarchy, i would be more tempted to say that people must only act rationally in their own self-interest in order to govern themselves effectively. i believe all men are capable of this.

as for your position on killing - murder is an irrational act. the characteristic that seperates man from animals is that man is rational. when you remove rational basis from your actions you stop acting in a human mannor. if everyone acted irrationaly all the time society would crumble.

i don't know that a person like you would need to be eliminated. you would be free to practice your beliefs - but you do so with the full knowledge that most people living in my anarchist state would be operating under the gadsen principle - "don't tread on me".

so if you wanted to exercise your percieved "right" to kill, you would do so under the threat of loss of your own life. and now we're at the compromise you spoke of earlier.

as for motive changing the crime, since we can never know fully what is in another mans head, we can only judge and punish his actions. we cannot police mans thoughts, only his actions.

lastly, in defense of my character, i don't usually start the flaming. i just finish it. i won't say "you're stupid" unless you say it to me first.