>I suspect that anarcho-capitalism [...] relies upon some wrong assumptions
>about human nature.
>[W]e shouldn't be so quick to assume that the rest of the
>world will readily incorporate the value system that makes capitalism
The market doesn't "incorporate" any value system. It maximizes whatever (quantifiable) values the participants choose. Of course, the maintenance of market *freedom* does depend (from the outside, as it were) on freedom ranking high in (most) participants' value systems.
>>Businesses have control over their employees for only as long as they
>>work for the business. To me, the government is a very real and
>>present danger to my freedom. Each day that I work having to pay
>>taxes through the taxation of my company and through the taxes
>>deducted from my paycheck without my approval are very real to me.
>I understand this point of view.
But you apparently don't "buy" it. Why not?
>>Those productive dollars go to pay the salaries of people like you,
>>who do not provide service based on the market. Your job exists
>>because the government can arrest and punish those will not subscribe.
>That seems a stretch. Customer service polls show that most people are
>satisfied with the products and services my agency produces, so I think
>there's something more to it than coercion.
Yes, for those who are satisfied. What about the rest?
Are you saying it's ok to coerce people as long as they're in the minority?
>The particular product that my
>division produces is most probably something that could not be produced by
>the private sector.
That's always the excuse, isn't it? But of course you're not willing to let the "private sector" try, are you? And if it is something that a free market wouldn't produce, what does that say about the actual value of your product? Valuable goods don't have to be forced on anyone, people eagerly pay for them.
>(I'd rather not get into specifics, however, since
>there's always the chance that someone reading this is not quite in their
>right mind. I've been rather surprised at how mean-spirited some of the
>communication to this point has been.)
The mean-spiritedness is an indication of the righteous indignation felt by those of us who dissent from the view that our lives and livelihoods are at the disposal of those in power.
Don't worry, though, I doubt anyone on this list is a member of a "patriot" militia.
>I don't personally know "Mr. Government", but I will track him down and
>relay your question.
He's better known as Uncle Sam, I believe. One rich relation I'd rather have nothing to do with.
>I'm quite aware of how the government has expanded in size and scope this
>century. For the most part, however, I think the government's activities
>are fairly harmless.
Harmless? Forcible meddling in peaceful people's lives is "harmless"? Taking half of our wealth under duress to support market-strangling regulation, persecution of "criminals" without victims, and war - that's "harmless"? What would you define as "harm", pray tell?
>Sure, we hear about occasional abuses of power such as
>Waco and Ruby Ridge. Just as the occasional dramatic airline crash leads
>many to wrongly believe that travel by auto is safer, these headline
>make some believe that the government is out to get them.
One difference is that airline crashes aren't usually intentional. We also don't have to pay for airline seats if we don't want to fly.