Minarchy(Pro) vs. Anarchy(Con)

"The force you seek is to take control away from someone over their own property. " Saying a person shouldn't point their gun property at your head takes a degree of control away-- it prevents them from controlling it in directions that affect property that is NOT theirs, in this case jurisdictional property. " The majority of criminals don't kill people, which is what was being referred to. That is if government officials aren't being considered criminals." The majority of government officials don't kill people either. A small number do most of the killings. They manage to do it primarily because there is no one bigger in town. If there is no one "bigger" in town than the common nonmonopoly criminals, then killing becomes much less of a monopoly operation :P. "Again, they work as if very many small nations." There is a reason nations are big. Because problems are big. THEY CROSS PROPERTY LINES. If someone shoots your wife, and flees on to your neighbors property, do you support that neighbor's right to exercise his law monopoly on his property and pardon them? Takes a bit longer to flee to Canada, and we only have two countries bordering us, Canada and Mexico, both of whom we have extradition treaties with. Since samples are much smaller in your model, unlike with Canada and Mexico not all parties to the agreement will necessarily contain crime victims, and thus the agreement won't happen, especially since the criminal isn't likely to target his favorite safety area. " Do you think a property dispute can be better settled by some impersonal judge or on a local level? " Considering how it will not necessarily be settled AT ALL on a "local level" (which is a STUPID phrase, for one thing impersonal judges for such things are often rather local in jurisdiction, for another arbitration agencies, which I presume you're referring to, could grow), let alone well, and in a system where there are impersonal judges it is still permissible to settle things out of court. The court only steps into property disputes when a party to the dispute has already proven by requesting such stepping in that they have no desire to reach an agreement with the disputee. And what agreement is possible? If you have a property dispute with three drunk guys on a football team, and you can prove you own it, what do they care about such proof if they are three people, and you are one, and they are on the football team, and you are not? " USA had a president, CSA had a president, they were two different governments. " Yes. Competing governments within one nation. They would have become two-- if the CSA had won, in the unlikely event it decided to let the loser keep their system of government. But a nation is not a nation until it becomes one :P. " And why were we there?" To prevent the system advocated by a rival for global power (incidentally a very oppressive system) from spreading? "Can you think of any war that wasn't either about money, freedom or both?" Irrelevant here, we were speaking about victory, not motive. "And on a local level, money would have even more to play a part in who wins." Bill Gates has money. I can gather up a small group of hippies with roughly one-500,000th his net worth combined, and they can kick his arse with the element of surprise and numbers. And if I'm willing to sacrifice surprise, I can probably gather more numbers. I wouldn't want to kick Gates' arse but that's irrelevant. " What you seek is something that both enforces and also abuses property rights" Whose property is abused? "What I seek is one that only does the former." Except it doesn't. :A broadcast spectrum and soil are both physical unlike the concept of jurisdiction. Why not take your rationality further? If you can have ownership over jurisdiction, not only of yourself but of the entire concept, then why can't you own the entire concept of happiness as well You don't own the concept of jurisdiction. You own YOUR jurisdiction. You also own YOUR happiness but this has no practical consequences. And actually, a jurisdiction is about as physical as a broadcast spectrum-- neither is a material object, both are merely the rights to perform certain actions in a certain location defined relative to the object Earth. :Intellectual property does not exist. Yes, it does. :Further more, it's enforcement is not beneficial to society. You write a book. Some arsehole prints it and sells it without your permission. Unlike you, he did not have to WRITE the book to get it, as a result, he is at a competitive advantage, because he takes the product of your investment without having paid into the investment-- he is free riding on you. Why would anyone write a book for money ever again? "The free-market relies on open access to advancement" If by this mean to other people's designs and stories, to the same extent the free market relies on open access to your neighbor's house, i.e., not at at all. "it is always trying to make things better for the sake of profit" Which is exactly why the profits should go to the one who, you know, made them better. "If someone has a monopoly over an idea than they are hindering the progression of society" Every bit as fallacious as "if someone has a monopoly over a land area then they are hindering the progression of society." " Hasn't history shown us that even the smallest of governments have the tendency to grow?" History has never shown us anything about a minarchy whatsoever. None has ever existed. And it's not like they are plants or anything. They depend on human action. The point is to act in a manner conducive to keeping one from growing. "An argument between a Totalitarian and a Minarchist is one between an oak tree and an acorn, ultimately they are both the same thing, one just hasn't quite gotten there yet. " No, an argument between Stalin and Cody maybe would be analogous. That is not at all analogous, because not only has the minarchist "not gotten there," but he isn't headed there. " What is it exactly that makes you place so much faith in your leaders?" The leaders do, or don't. If the latter, I will seek to shoot them. "Where is it you will find these perfect beings to run your country?" Define "perfect being." And I'll look wherever they show up. Until I find a better guy to be in charge, I'll act under the assumption I'll end up doing it. "If you place your livelihood on the bet that they will maintain their integrity" Everyone places their livelihood on a bet on their own integrity and that of the people who contract with them. They might have various insurance measures of course, in this case revolt. "These judges will not for long hold to principle in defending property only how you see fit" Even if I'm in charge of them? :P "they will eventually see the opportunities to further their own interest " How exactly is it in their interest to undermine the very things that got them the job, thereby ensuring that people will want someone else in the job instead?