Minarchy(Pro) vs. Anarchy(Con)

"Actually, that is the only way force has ever been consistently prevented– by the threat of retaliation." And I believe in having a threat of retaliation as well but also that one should have the choice of what threat-system they should use, rather than all being forced to use the same. Do you have statistics? Death tolls of criminals versus governments? 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. "This is a common misconception about courts among Anarchists. The concept of a court that requires the voluntary participation of EVERYONE is unequivocally laughable. Party A murder's Party B's wife. Party B takes Party A to court. Party A says "Um, no. I'm a customer of a different court sorry."" Ragnar, your not understanding this. Different lands are bound by different contracts. Whichever court has right over the land that the person was on who was murdered will have right over judging the case. Get it? "Um no, if they DO they risk having their rights abused by the people who don't, since those people aren't bound by laws!" 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 when they are on it. I explained this before; basically it's every property acting like it's own nation. "The casualties of the American Civil War exceed the American casualties of all foreign wars it was involved in from the Revolution to Vietnam." You think the American Civil War was a business war? Hello? It was a war between two nations. Business may have been involved, just like most other wars, but it was run by government. "Money is a minor factor in wars." Riiiiiight… "That is a statement that already presumes a fixed law enforced by a monopoly government that permits them to make that choice." You think government gives us our right to property? And your Objectivist? I believe in protection of property just as you do, but also believe in choosing who you want to protect it. "A statement like this requires reference to a theory of property. Provide it immediately." 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. " Nonsense. You're arguing with a user fee minarchist, not a liberal." 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.