Billy Brown [bbrown@conemsco.com] wrote:
>Anarchist proposals are much more speculative than ideas for
>constitutional reform, which makes their actual results much more difficult
>to predict.
>Consequently, it would only be worthwhile to take a chance on
>such ideas if they seemed likely to give much better results.
>Now, a limited constitutional republic can come fairly close to the
>libertarian ideal of complete personal liberty.
>A successful anarchist scheme would offer very similar results. You would
>pay voluntary fees for police protection instead of taxes, but you would
>still have to pay.
Why would you have to pay? If you don't want police 'protection' you just buy a gun or two and protect yourself. That's not an option in a government system... and anyway, private protection will be a lot cheaper than compulsory tax-funded government 'protection'.
>You would have a larger choice of legal regimes, but the
>kinds of laws we really care about wouldn't exist in either scheme.
Sorry? What? Huh? Where do you get that idea from?
>In contrast, the most likely failure mode of a controlled anarchy scheme
>is simple, uncontrolled anarchy.
>Those who have power take whatever they want
>from those who don't, which results in a society with all the problems of
>despotism and none of the advantages.
Only if you assume that a couple of hundred million well-armed anarchists are just going to stand aside and hand over their money to a few thugs.
>The end result is very
>unpredictable - you could get anything from a tolerant democracy to a
>totalitarian regime, and you can get it in a matter of a few years.
Nonsense. Once an anarchist society gets into a stable state it is very stable. The problem is getting from here to there, not staying there.
>So summarize: pure anarchy is a monster far worse than all but the most
>oppressive of governments.
So name a few anarchists who've killed tens of millions of their own people on a whim? I didn't think you could.
>Any scheme of controlled anarchy is a stroll
>along the edge of an abyss, with no past experience to guide our way.
>I agree that we have problems here, but getting rid of government does
>nothing to solve them.
>Besides, the situation isn't nearly as bad as you
>seem to think (your irate group has to include some very rare specialists),
That is scientists, technicians and military weapons experts; the very people *most* likely to get pissed off by overbearing governments. McVeigh, remember, is ex-military and was taught to blow things up by the US government.
>(sensors are
>improving much faster than destructive technologies, for example).
'Mr President, sir, we've just detected a missile launch from Montana, sensors say it's carrying a thermonuclear warhead. It'll be here in two minutes.'
Yeah, those sensors are really going to help, I mean like at least you'll have time to kiss your ass goodbye before it gets vaporized. That'll be cool.
Mark