Minarchy(Pro) vs. Anarchy(Con)

"And I believe in having a threat of retaliation as well" So you withdraw your sarcasm about preventing force by implementing force. " Now come on Ragnar, be serious. The Mao Zedong regime was estimated to have killed over 80 million people, Hitler killed about 6 million, think of everyone who died in WWI, WWII, The American Civil War, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, the countless wars of old, all throughout Europe and Asia, imagine all the government atrocities of the Dark Ages, the mass killings caused by governments throughout all of Africa, imagine all the invasions, and all the ethnic cleansings. Now Ragnar, can you really tell me that the overwhelming combined might of every dictator, every soldier, warrior, and government official over millenia of senseless mass blood baths is really to compare to the considerably smaller lone individuals and organizations that have sprung up? Sorry Ragnar, but I'm afraid the burden of proof rests on you. " You edited out the part where there is nothing to prove because no government-free country has ever been attempted and so there are no grounds for comparison. And criminals may operate on a smaller scale, but there are more of them :P :\Ragnar, your not understanding this. Different lands are bound by different contracts. Freedo, you're not understanding this, that's a LAW. How do you intend to enforce it against the competing government that says "nuh uh?" By establishing a monopoly to push them out no doubt. :Whichever court has right over the land that the person was on who was murdered will have right over judging the case. Get it? Whichever government doesn't give a damn about rights you can do absolutely nothing about without establishing a monopoly, especially if the issue in question is who has the land rights in the first place. :P :Again, a misunderstanding. If they choose not to enter into contract with a court than they are not bound by laws on their own property. However, they ARE bound by the laws of someone else's property Which requires reference to a supreme law by a supreme lawmaker who determines what constitutes property which is only coherent in the context of MONOPOLY. Incidentally, you are also ignoring issues that take place over the range of multiple properties in addition to disputes over properties. :You think the American Civil War was a business war? It was a war between rival governments. It only ended-- when one of them managed to assert a monopoly. :It was a war between two nations. No, it wasn't. There was only one nation ever involved. One of the parties wanted to change that. It just so happens they failed. :Business may have been involved, just like most other wars, but it was run by government. A government is just a special type of business. One I advocate monopoly in and you don't. :Riiiiiight… See also 'Nam. :You think government gives us our right to property? No, but it gives us the fact that the property is ENFORCED. :I believe in protection of property just as you do, but also believe in choosing who you want to protect it. Which is jumping the gun in issues where the property's ownership is the matter of dispute and in which multiple properties are involved. :Property is a natural occurrence in a free-market, it is part of human nature. It is the recognition of objective and physical objects becoming as if an extension of our own being, having choice over what to do with it. Any other kind of property or lack thereof is unnatural and can only be sustained by some kind of enforcement. Any kind whatsoever can only be sustained by enforcement, the proof of this can be had when someone tries to take your computer. Furthermore, a field of jurisdiction is an extension of the government to exactly the same extent a field of broadcast spectrum is an extension of the broadcaster or a field of soil is an extension of the farmer. Also, that isn't a theory of property n00b, it doesn't detail how one originally acquires it. "But Ragnar, didn't you say that "If a government does initiate force by doing something else, they should be rebelled against, but whichever party disposes of them acquires the jurisdiction."? Certainly for you to obtain your Minarchy you would have to rebel to some government that does initiate taxation. Property is still illegitimate when you take it from someone who already had obtained it illegitimately." How so? It was illegitimate at the time, gummint killed the illegitimate possessor, it now has no possessor, and thus returns to nature, gummint acquires it from nature by mixing labor.