 |
| No Roolz!! | |
This came from reader B ... Love your site. Your definitions are absolute killers. I found almost total
resonance with nearly every article of crude, belligerant, vulgar beauty
that graces it's pages. However, as I approached the end of my serial time
killing spree I stuck a bad chord. In particular, I reference your article
on 'Anarchism': Anarchists believe that the world would be a better place
without any government
control. They apparently believe that people will not initiate force against each other in the
absence of a ruling authority which tells them not to. The inevitable short-term outcome of the imposition of
anarchism is choas, lawlessnes and slavery. The medium-term
outcome is feudalism, and the long term outcome is democracy or dictatorship.
Anarchists are losers." I found this a little odd from someone as rational (or perhaps 'logical',
there is a difference) as yourself. I have always considered Anarchism to be
the logical extension of libertarianism ( i.e. full privatisation of the
government). Obviously I am talking about the only 'real' form of anarchsim,
being 'market anarchy'/'anacho-capitalism' (The rest being Stalinism in
denial).
You did say yourself that the government is simply:
"An organization which monopolizes coercion in a region." Now why couldn't that be done by a competeing freemarket of security firms,
based upon the interests of the companies that employ them, based in turn
upon the interests of the shareholders, based in turn upon satisfying the
consumers who commision these services in return for a nice wad of liquid
capital. You seem to have a sound understanding of economics. As such,
would not a competeing market of fims providing a service be better than a
forced monopoly in any circumstance (none the least the given circumstance,
granted the said monopoly is rather taken by the act of charging
compulsorily for the services it provides)? Furthermore, any service which
the government performs either has a justifiable purpose, or falls into the
category of bureaucratic pork barelling. As such, any serviice provided by
the governmen which did indeed have a justifiable purpose would surely have
it's own level of market demand (for if it did not, it would not be
worthwhile), in which case it could easily be provided for by a firm for
some kind of ongoing subscription fee.
| 
