Why I am now an anarchist

[brandon]

I used to really believe in a constitutional republic. I used to think a government with very small amounts of power is the ideal situation. I no longer think this, for a variety of reasons.

I think that the state can provide some services more efficiently then the private sector ever can, such as building public roads. I used to think that because of this, a small government was preferable to anarchy. After thinking about it for a while, I realized I was wrong.

If a state exists at all, even for very minimalistic purposes, it will seek to expand it's power and influence. The general population is too ignorant to realize this, and will gladly vote away thier freedoms.

Therefore, I now am 100% anarchist. I think sacrficing efficiency in areas like public roads, or law enforcement is a worthwhile trade off to not having to worry about the state increasing its power. ALthough I guess this is just a dream because some dick head will eventually try to become the ruler of the anarchy anyway.

What do you think the best form of government is?

[nate895]

And of course, everyone in this magical land without government will stop wanting to harm others. All those thieves, murderers, and rapists will just realize that they need no longer commit those crimes. We will no longer need law enforcement, a fire department, or they can be run by a rich slob who will use his newfound power to take money away from you.

Face it: without government that protects your liberty, your natural rights are totally out in the open to be taken by anyone who shows up with the biggest gun and the most money.

[Patriot123]

Well, a constitutional republic. But let me explain, because my thinking is the exact same; nearly at least, as yours. Obviously people are too ignorant. But IF people were actually responsible; which they're not, it would absolutely work. But people are not. And as such, a constitutional republic is only viable if people are actually responsible enough; hence for the small population that actually cares. So say, if all of us Ron Paul people were to form our own nation and not allow anyone in, it would certainly work. Because we care, and that gene is carried on, meaning our grandchildren and great grandchildren will care as well. But yes, I see exactly where your going. But the world isn't perfect. An anarchy would evolve right back into a government. Always. So really, a dictatorship is the best form of government, to be honest. Well, all right. Maybe not best, but most sustainable, of course. And hopefully you would get a dictator who actually cared...

[brandon]

And of course, everyone in this magical land without government will stop wanting to harm others. All those thieves, murderers, and rapists will just realize that they need no longer commit those crimes. We will no longer need law enforcement, a fire department, or they can be run by a rich slob who will use his newfound power to take money away from you.

Face it: without government that protects your liberty, your natural rights are totally out in the open to be taken by anyone who shows up with the biggest gun and the most money.

People steal and commit violent crimes now.

Anyway, the private sector can provide *all* services that we are used to recieving from the government. We can have private fire departments or volunteer fire departments.

We can also have private competing law enforcement agencies. If you really believe in and understand the free market, you will realize how all of these things are feasible.

[kylejack]

In some senses I agree, but its so unviable politically that I don't ponder it too much.

[integrity]

anarchy results in oligarchy.....

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6732659166933078950&q=overview+of+america+site%3Avideo.google.com&total=81&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0


everyone in the revolution should be made to watch this video.

[rpfreedom08]

You beat me to it :)^^^

edit: everyone in the revolution should be made to watch that video.

[CountryboyRonPaul]

How would you defend the country? A private military? They would soon assume power, anyway.

There is no perfect government, but I believe our founders gave us the best possible system.

Unfortunately various interests have usurped that system, and now use it to their own ends, and the media can convince everybody it's 100% constitutional.

[BravoSix]

People steal and commit violent crimes now.

Anyway, the private sector can provide *all* services that we are used to recieving from the government. We can have private fire departments or volunteer fire departments.

We can also have private competing law enforcement agencies. If you really believe in and understand the free market, you will realize how all of these things are feasible.

Where would the "private competing law enforcement agencies" derive their authority from?

The People? You mean, as in the "People", just like a Constitutional Republic?

Once you form a consensus amongst the people to grant authority to a police force, you have created a defacto government.

[brandon]

Where would the "private competing law enforcement agencies" derive their authority from?

The People? You mean, as in the "People", just like a Constitutional Republic?

Once you form a consensus amongst the people to grant authority to a police force, you have created a defacto government.

They wouldn't have any more authority then anyone else. People would pay them for thier services. If they act out of line, the market will see to it that they are held accountable. In our current law enforcement system, no one holds the police accountable 9 times out of 10.

Consensus isnt required for the police force to exist. There can be several police forces existing at once in the same area.

Furthermore, people can learn to defend themselves. If everyone was well armed and trained, do you think there would still be alot of murders and rapes?

[nate895]

They wouldn't have any more authority then anyone else. People would pay them for thier services. If they act out of line, the market will see to it that they are held accountable. In our current law enforcement system, no one holds the police accountable 9 times out of 10.

Consensus isnt required for the police force to exist. There can be several police forces existing at once in the same area.

Furthermore, people can learn to defend themselves. If everyone was well armed and trained, do you think there would still be alot of murders and rapes?

It doesn't work that way when there is no regulation. There will either be some form of government, or total chaos. Explain how it works out any other way.

[brandon]

It doesn't work that way when there is no regulation. There will either be some form of government, or total chaos. Explain how it works out any other way.

If by chaos you mean anarchy, then you are correct!

What do you mean by total chaos? Do you think everyone is just waiting for a chance to go on a raping and murder spree? Do you think people will start fighting to the death and kicking babies in the head just because the state is gone?

[kylejack]

If by chaos you mean anarchy, then you are correct!

What do you mean by total chaos? Do you think everyone is just waiting for a chance to go on a raping and murder spree? Do you think people will start fighting to the death and kicking babies in the head just because the state is gone?
What I always say to anarchists is to just realize that you're already in an anarchist society. What is referred to as "the government" is just the biggest and baddest warlord. That seems to put things in perspective.

[BravoSix]

They wouldn't have any more authority then anyone else. People would pay them for thier services. If they act out of line, the market will see to it that they are held accountable. In our current law enforcement system, no one holds the police accountable 9 times out of 10.

Consensus isnt required for the police force to exist. There can be several police forces existing at once in the same area.

Furthermore, people can learn to defend themselves. If everyone was well armed and trained, do you think there would still be alot of murders and rapes?


I think you missed my point.

In an anarchist society, where this private police force exists, I commit a crime against you. Let's say I steal from you. What do you do? Call one of the many competing private law enforcement agencies? What are they to do?

They're not paid for by me, so where do they derive the authority to arrest and prosecute me?

Where am I prosecuted? Is there also a private court system? Where does their authority come from?

To answer your last question, yes....there would still be lots of crime. Even if we postulate that EVERYONE is armed and trained, which simply wouldn't be the case because of the apathy of most people, many criminals would continue to commit crimes out of a sense of "I'll never get caught" or out of pure apathy.

[brandon]

What I always say to anarchists is to just realize that you're already in an anarchist society. What is referred to as "the government" is just the biggest and baddest warlord. That seems to put things in perspective.

Interesting point, but let *me* try to put this in perpective now.

Under our constitutional republic a big bad warlord has emerged that is exponentially more powerful then any of the warlords that existed in the historic times before humans had government.

Why is that?

How did **** sapiens manage to survive the hunter-gatherer period without a government to protect them? If your answer is that times have changed and that is no longer viable in todays world, then I say this: That is the same argument many liberals make against libertarianism and our constitution.

[BravoSix]

How did **** sapiens manage to survive the hunter-gatherer period without a government to protect them? If your answer is that times have changed and that is no longer viable in todays world, then I say this: That is the same argument many liberals make against libertarianism and our constitution.


By having a much smaller population and using violence. Are you suggesting we eliminate 90+% of the world population and then fight out our differences? Maybe that's not such a bad idea....... ;)

[terryhamel]

Anarchy can only exist for a moment until the biggest guns from the biggest mob forces people to abide by their rule.

A constitutional republic gov't is one that derives it's power from the people. If you don't have the right to do it, neither does your representative from the gov't. A republic can only exist so long as it's representatives are moral. Even if the people democratically decide to override the rights of the individual, the representative is obliged to deny them.

When you look at current day politics, or even over the course of the American republic, you will see instances of representatives in all branches violating their oath to uphold the republic. They violate the rights of the individual in various capacities. When you pile on one little violation over time, called incrementalism, you have the conversion of the republic into a variant of a plutocracy. There's never a dictatorship because the head always has the support of others.

A good study on types of gov't is the DVD "Overview of America" by the JBS.

[Truth Warrior]

The difference is that today the biggest baddest gang of thugs enjoys widespread support of the slaves ... er ... victims .... er ..... citizens.

"Better a conscious slave than a happy one."

[amy31416]

This debate just reinforces that the most important issue is education.

With an educated and responsible population, any government is possible, all can seem good in some sense--anarchism is the ideal when people are educated, responsible and have a good moral compass.

Given that this is not the case, Anarchism can not work in our society. People like me need, unfortunately, protection or the illusion of protection. I have been educating myself on guns and things of that nature, but that's not common for a single female. Are you going to protect all of us? It's a fact that we're physically weaker and for that reason alone, are often victimized.

Does the anarchist state allow women to be picked off, so that eventually women evolve to be just as big and violent as men? (Perhaps my understanding of evolution is a bit simplistic here.)

Ideally, we are all so civilized that we don't need a government, but that just isn't the case.

[Truth Warrior]

We started out as savages. Through the ages we were able to scratch our way up to barbarism ( with frequent lapses back into savagery ) where we are now stuck. Civilization is but a vague dream over the far horizon. Will we make it? I have some very serious doubts that we will. :(

[amy31416]

We started out as savages. Through the ages we were able to scratch our way up to barbarism ( with frequent lapses back into savagery ) where we are now stuck. Civilization is but a vague dream over the far horizon. Will we make it? I have some very serious doubts that we will. :(

Maybe, maybe not. What are you doing to promote civility?

How do you live your life?

How do you teach people about being civil?

[Truth Warrior]

Maybe, maybe not. What are you doing to promote civility?

How do you live your life?

How do you teach people about being civil?

As a non-violent, non-coercive libertarian.

"The Illegality, Immorality, and Violence of All Political Action"
http://users.aol.com/xeqtr1/voluntaryist/vopa.html (http://users.aol.com/xeqtr1/voluntaryist/vopa.html)

Thanks for asking!

Have a good one!

:)

[Naraku]

The best form of government is where people's rights and general welfare are protected above all else.

Beyond that the only question is which government does this best.

[Truth Warrior]

The best form of government is where people's rights and general welfare are protected above all else.

Beyond that the only question is which government does this best.

"That government is best, that governs least." -- Thomas Jefferson

[TurtleBurger]

This debate just reinforces that the most important issue is education.

With an educated and responsible population, any government is possible, all can seem good in some sense--anarchism is the ideal when people are educated, responsible and have a good moral compass.

Given that this is not the case, Anarchism can not work in our society. People like me need, unfortunately, protection or the illusion of protection. I have been educating myself on guns and things of that nature, but that's not common for a single female. Are you going to protect all of us? It's a fact that we're physically weaker and for that reason alone, are often victimized.

Does the anarchist state allow women to be picked off, so that eventually women evolve to be just as big and violent as men? (Perhaps my understanding of evolution is a bit simplistic here.)

Ideally, we are all so civilized that we don't need a government, but that just isn't the case.

If you were attacked, do you think the government police would show up in time to save you? The odds are probably 100:1 against. You'd be much safer if you and your neighbors pitched in and hired a fulltime, heavily armed security guard just for your neighborhood, who wouldn't spend most of his time chasing down people going 5 mph over the speed limit. If your security guard did a poor job, you could fire him and hire a better one; try doing that with government police.

[brandon]

If you were attacked, do you think the government police would show up in time to save you? The odds are probably 100:1 against. You'd be much safer if you and your neighbors pitched in and hired a fulltime, heavily armed security guard just for your neighborhood, who wouldn't spend most of his time chasing down people going 5 mph over the speed limit. If your security guard did a poor job, you could fire him and hire a better one; try doing that with government police.

Yes, this is exactly what I meant when I said we could have "competing private law enforcement"

[Truth Warrior]

Yes, this is exactly what I meant when I said we could have "competing private law enforcement"

Suggestion: Think protection rather than law enforcement. Law enforcement is what the cops do. They aren't really directly in the protection business, as such.

[brandon]

Suggestion: Think protection rather than law enforcement. Law enforcement is what the cops do. They aren't really directly in the protection business, as such.

Yea, I guess "law enforcement" wasn't the best choice of words. You can have laws in an anarchy though. An anarchy can having competing codes of law. As long as thier is no state endorsing one specific code of law, it is still anarchy.

[apc3161]

Constitutional Republic with sever penalties for violating the constitution.

Every bill must specifically state which power ordained to the government allows the government to pass any bill. There would be a 4th branch of government, a court of such, that would determine whether or not a bill is constitutional, after it was voted on but before it goes into affect.

Anyone who votes for a bill that is seen as unconstitutional, will immediately resign his seat or get a warning, where so many warnings result in one losing his seat.

[SigurdVolsung]

An important thing to note is that there is no perfect system of government. Anything created by man is as inherently flawed and weak as man is himself. All government
by its nature will fail at some point, but a lack of government also carries its own sets of inherent flaws and problems some of which people have just noted.

Nothing can be set in stone, the greatest ideals of liberty and freedom will eventually be corrupted just as laws of the land like the Constitution will eventually
be picked apart and subverted for some sort of agenda. A fundamental realisation (which is something most idealists refuse to acknowledge) is that all things great and noble will be made

base and subverted. Then it will be up to the next generation of patriots to set things right. Nothing lasts forever.

[CountryboyRonPaul]

How did **** sapiens manage to survive the hunter-gatherer period without a government to protect them? If your answer is that times have changed and that is no longer viable in todays world, then I say this: That is the same argument many liberals make against libertarianism and our constitution.

By living in Family groups with an alpha male, like a Wolf Pack.

I define that as a form of government, I define any heirarchy of power as a form of government, and not Anarchy. Name me one situation where **** Sapien has survived without some form of heirarchal system, other than a solitary person on their own.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I used to really believe in a constitutional republic. I used to think a government with very small amounts of power is the ideal situation. I no longer think this, for a variety of reasons.

I think that the state can provide some services more efficiently then the private sector ever can, such as building public roads. I used to think that because of this, a small government was preferable to anarchy. After thinking about it for a while, I realized I was wrong.

If a state exists at all, even for very minimalistic purposes, it will seek to expand it's power and influence. The general population is too ignorant to realize this, and will gladly vote away thier freedoms.

Therefore, I now am 100% anarchist. I think sacrficing efficiency in areas like public roads, or law enforcement is a worthwhile trade off to not having to worry about the state increasing its power. ALthough I guess this is just a dream because some dick head will eventually try to become the ruler of the anarchy anyway.

What do you think the best form of government is?

We have a government that has eroded into a legal tyranny.
Rather than trying to sort through the millions of complex, legal issues created by this legal tyranny, we should be trying to focus our efforts millions of different ways on just the significance of just a single important issue -- the civil purpose designed into the Constitution by our forefathers regarding our collective contentment (happiness) as American citizens.
Perhaps it would be better for us to meditate on just our civil montra rather than read countless more legal books. We tend to be so over educated nowadays that we have fallen into a deep slumber in regards to the simplicity of the civil purose our forefathers left for us in the U.S. Constition. In order to escape out from under legal tyranny today, we need to meditate on the civil purpose:

While in a legal tyranny we have a souless culture eroded away into a chaos of endless political issues, in the civil purpose inherited from our forefathers we have a clear definition of our common culture as Americans -- our collective happiness.

[spudea]

What do you mean by direct democracy? I take it to mean that everyone represents themselves, and gets an equal voice in decieding national legislative actions. This would be the most complicated form (300 million votes everytime the national government needs to do something). However, a constitutional republic is succeptable to corruption and influence. If every person could decide for themselves, it would be harder to manipulate.

I think our current system is old and outdated. 535 representatives working for over 300 million people. This is not proportionate and we should use our modern technology to include several thousand representatives.

[Moobi]

An important thing to note is that there is no perfect system of government. Anything created by man is as inherently flawed and weak as man is himself. All government
by its nature will fail at some point, but a lack of government also carries its own sets of inherent flaws and problems some of which people have just noted.

Nothing can be set in stone, the greatest ideals of liberty and freedom will eventually be corrupted just as laws of the land like the Constitution will eventually
be picked apart and subverted for some sort of agenda. A fundamental realisation (which is something most idealists refuse to acknowledge) is that all things great and noble will be made

base and subverted. Then it will be up to the next generation of patriots to set things right. Nothing lasts forever.
Correct. Circle gets the Square. :D

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

What do you mean by direct democracy? I take it to mean that everyone represents themselves, and gets an equal voice in decieding national legislative actions. This would be the most complicated form (300 million votes everytime the national government needs to do something). However, a constitutional republic is succeptable to corruption and influence. If every person could decide for themselves, it would be harder to manipulate.

I think our current system is old and outdated. 535 representatives working for over 300 million people. This is not proportionate and we should use our modern technology to include several thousand representatives.

It is vain to speak of political issues while living in a legal tyranny. In fact, during such evil times we really have little to do politically. One thing we can do is draw a line deep in the soil between what is considered a modern American Patriot versus an opposing Loyalist. After drawing this line we really have little to sell to entice others to cross that line because our nation has basically marketed itself out of business by buying into an empty Federal box of goods.
So the job we have before us today is fairly easy. As we already have some tools to bring our nation back from the brink of legal tyranny, we also need to develop some creative ways to confront the impending persecution such systems bring (Social Darwinism was another period in which we went through legal tyranny).
Our early forefathers managed to ammend (clarify) the interpretation of the Constitution early on by creating the 2 party system and then by later on creating 3rd parties. The 3rd party systems were necessary for the reestablishing of the 2 parties when they both eroded into a single party. So, we do have a lot of tools that we are certainly implementing today in order to shift our government away from a legal tyranny back towards the civil purpose our forefahers designed in the Constitution -- collective contentment.

[mediahasyou]

Here's why:

"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun"
Mao Tse-Tung (Communist)

In summary of what Mao said: Who ever has the most balls in an anarchy wins.

And the man was right for once. If you live in anarchy who ever is stronger, wins. (Assuming there is a disagreement). It's survival of the fittest. Darwin's natural selection. And then we are back to where we started. Ground Zero. Back to the Animal world that we pulled our selves out of through Logic.

It's a sad thing:
We The People do need that government that can be so "evil".

But, how much of this evil do we really need?
The only government we need is to protect human life, liberty, and property.

We need government coercion to prevent killing of humans. Who's going to stop me from killing you?(in an anarchist society). Isn't being killed by me just as bad as being killed by the governmnet?

We need government coercion to protect liberty. Who's going to stop me from telling you that you can't buy food anymore?(in an anarchist society) Isn't this just as bad as the government taking away your liberty?

We need government coercion to protect property. Who's going to stop me from taking your computer? Isn't the government taking away your property just as bad as me taking away your property?

So what do we really need government for?

G. Edward Griffin spells them right out in his commandment of freedom:

INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS
Do not sacrifice the rights of any individual or minority for the assumed rights of the group.

EQUALITY UNDER LAW
Do not endorse any law that does not apply to all citizens equally.

FREEDOM OF CHOICE
Do not use coercion for any purpose except to protect human life, liberty, or property.

The inconvient fact for us all is that we do need government. A government that is in a general consensus of what our moral values are. However, since all humans are not created equal, in terms of thoughts, we must keep this government small, limited. We must not let the government grow. We freedom lovers, need to stunt the growth of the government.

[Kludge]

I've said it at least 5-10 times here, so I apologize if you've already read this...

Taxes are IMMORAL!

Follow reason...

Aggression is immoral. Theft is aggression. Taxation is theft (since no one supports EVERY project the government funds). Government imposes taxes. Thus, government is immoral. Which leads to the fact that government is inherently evil.

Property tax is the most repulsive of these taxes, where the government asserts that it owns your property. If you don't pay your rent to the State, they WILL take your land.

Here's my favorite form of "government". We have a few LOCAL "general-purpose" funds. We'd have such funds as the Judicial fund, an infrastructure fund (roads) and a restricted peace officer (fire/police/etc.) fund. While not required, paying at least $50 into a fund would allow you to elect those employed in your local area or just the official representative/administrator of the office which you paid for who'd employ others.

This is the only moral yet efficient system I've found.

Edit: Only aggression against another human being would be considered illegal, to be determined by the judicial system.

[BillyDkid]

And of course, everyone in this magical land without government will stop wanting to harm others. All those thieves, murderers, and rapists will just realize that they need no longer commit those crimes. We will no longer need law enforcement, a fire department, or they can be run by a rich slob who will use his newfound power to take money away from you.

Face it: without government that protects your liberty, your natural rights are totally out in the open to be taken by anyone who shows up with the biggest gun and the most money.Well, first, I don't think anarchy mean lawlessness - It means just what it says - no king, no President, no Prime Ministers, no one elected or appointed to have authority over others. Secondly, laws do not prevent crimes - obviously enough. They do delineate what sorts of behaviors will be punished so that punishment isn't just arbitrary. Obviously, any society is going to require "government" of some sort - but the more local and more controlled by the governed the better. In terms of the country, the only legitimate role for government is to protect our natural rights and, as the libertarians always say, to enforce contracts.

[dust of nations]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6732659166933078950&q=overview+of+america+site%3Avideo.google.com&total=81&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0


everyone in the revolution should be made to watch this video.[/QUOTE]

what i understand as our revolution, wouldn't make anyone, do anything. i think everyone should watch this but not be made to. am i right?

[IDefendThePlatform]

What I always say to anarchists is to just realize that you're already in an anarchist society. What is referred to as "the government" is just the biggest and baddest warlord. That seems to put things in perspective.

Anarchy doesn't imply that warlords will spring up all over. It only means that no one has the right to initiate force against someone else. Taxation is force.

If we were fortunate enough to eliminate the government in our lifetime then we would all be able to voluntarily associate with whatever groups we choose. If you commit a crime against me, then I would need to convince enough of our neighbors that I had been wronged and that you owe me restitution. A system similar to this was used in Iceland in the 600's. Of course, this is not the only answer to crime in anarchist society, but I know people would come up with other good solutions because Freedom Works!

I've plugged this book before on this forum, but here goes again. This is a complex issue and probably can't be decided in 5 pages of RPF posts. "The Machinery of Freedom" by David Friedman lays out the anarchist position as well as any I've seen. I've read a number on constitutional/limited government and they all leaving me thinking "If government is bad at _______ (health care, welfare, foreign relations, etc...) why would it be good at personal protection?" I don't think the force of government can do anything nearly as well as the collective efforts of free people voluntarily working in their own best interests.

[whereishelpicon]

There is no perfect government. There probably isn't any really good ones either, not even an anarchist society.

It all boils down to humans being greedy and it ruining every government we try to make work.

[Kludge]

There is no perfect government. There probably isn't any really good ones either, not even an anarchist society.

It all boils down to humans being greedy and it ruining every government we try to make work.

This is why the lack of government is the most appealing and easiest to maintain. We'd have no foreign policy! Our country has VERY FEW natural resources, and civil disobedience/no gun control would prevent any country stupid enough to invade us the ability to occupy for long. The TRULY representative $50+ to vote rule would allow voters who spend money, decide how it's spent with more ease then currently.

Greed can go no further then monetary profit and prestige in a free market.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Here's why:

"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun"
Mao Tse-Tung (Communist)

In summary of what Mao said: Who ever has the most balls in an anarchy wins.

And the man was right for once. If you live in anarchy who ever is stronger, wins. (Assuming there is a disagreement). It's survival of the fittest. Darwin's natural selection. And then we are back to where we started. Ground Zero. Back to the Animal world that we pulled our selves out of through Logic.

It's a sad thing:
We The People do need that government that can be so "evil".

But, how much of this evil do we really need?
The only government we need is to protect human life, liberty, and property.

We need government coercion to prevent killing of humans. Who's going to stop me from killing you?(in an anarchist society). Isn't being killed by me just as bad as being killed by the governmnet?

We need government coercion to protect liberty. Who's going to stop me from telling you that you can't buy food anymore?(in an anarchist society) Isn't this just as bad as the government taking away your liberty?

We need government coercion to protect property. Who's going to stop me from taking your computer? Isn't the government taking away your property just as bad as me taking away your property?

So what do we really need government for?

G. Edward Griffin spells them right out in his commandment of freedom:

INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS
Do not sacrifice the rights of any individual or minority for the assumed rights of the group.

EQUALITY UNDER LAW
Do not endorse any law that does not apply to all citizens equally.

FREEDOM OF CHOICE
Do not use coercion for any purpose except to protect human life, liberty, or property.

The inconvient fact for us all is that we do need government. A government that is in a general consensus of what our moral values are. However, since all humans are not created equal, in terms of thoughts, we must keep this government small, limited. We must not let the government grow. We freedom lovers, need to stunt the growth of the government.

The strongest man doesn't always rule just as the strongest animal doesn't always survive. That was an important point that Darwin wanted to make. Besides, an Aristocracy would be a natural thing if this were true. However, an Aristocracy is an unnatural thing because the King or Dictator has to seek out a relationship of preservation with the strongest men or families. The relationship works in favor of both parties. Mexico is a good example of an Aristocracy when the dictator Santa Anna had to set one up for his self preservation after he threw out the Mexican Constitution.

[LibertyRevolution]

Well, a constitutional republic. But let me explain, because my thinking is the exact same; nearly at least, as yours. Obviously people are too ignorant. But IF people were actually responsible; which they're not, it would absolutely work. But people are not. And as such, a constitutional republic is only viable if people are actually responsible enough; hence for the small population that actually cares. So say, if all of us Ron Paul people were to form our own nation and not allow anyone in, it would certainly work. Because we care, and that gene is carried on, meaning our grandchildren and great grandchildren will care as well. But yes, I see exactly where your going. But the world isn't perfect. An anarchy would evolve right back into a government. Always. So really, a dictatorship is the best form of government, to be honest. Well, all right. Maybe not best, but most sustainable, of course. And hopefully you would get a dictator who actually cared...

+1 for Ron Paul as dictator! Dont the donations show that the military supports Ron Paul?

[Laja]

wonderful and educational thread. thanks!

[elahewu]

But without rulers, how will we measure things?

PDF on Private Police from mises (http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/9_2/9_2_2.pdf)
Lots of other folks have thought about this too. Google is your friend.

Those saying Anarchy (lack of rulers, not chaos) can't work need to read their history. Study Iceland from 930-1262. Yes it failed but it lasted longer than the 85 years that the American experiment in freedom lasted.