> -----Original Message-----
> From: Terry Donaghe <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> To: email@example.com <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> >---Samael <Samael@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Darin Sunley <email@example.com>
> >> To: firstname.lastname@example.org <email@example.com>
> >> Date: 11 December 1998 13:15
> >> Subject: Re: Re: The Education Function
> >> >The only hole in this, of course, is the lack of ability in most
> >> for a citizen to "opt out" of government services. My brother feels
> >> allowing opting out would be a bad idea. I think I agree, at least for
> >> certain category B services that are both very important and whose
> >> decreases as the amount of buy-in decreases.
> >> For instance, the army. It's a tad hard to protect no 7 smith
> >street from
> >> nuclear weapons without protecting no 9 as well (even iof no 7 wants
> >to pay
> >> for it and no 9 doesn't).
> >If there are no governments then who is going to bomb who? The reason
> >we have wars in the first place is because one government has a beef
> >with another government. If there is no central authority to attack,
> >how does one wage war? If there's no government to surrender how does
> >the aggresor declare victory?
Libertarians are not pacifistic. They just view force as a normally inefficient option which is not cost effective under most circumstances. Now, if we were a libertarian society, then once somebody like Saddam, who is located outside an ungoverned area, bombed a building insured by a PPA, then that PPA would contract a mercenary organization to respond in kind to eliminate the threat.