I wrote:
>I don't get the point of your response, Samael. Why do you refer to a
>"government" as a PPA? A PPA is a voluntary association that arises due to
>market demand. It has little in common with an organization that claims a
>monopoly on the use of force in a certain territory, and prevents
>competition by force of arms.
Samael replies:
>Because many, many people believe that their government is acting
reasonably
>(at least some of the time). They are happy (ish) with their
>representatives. While it is not a true PPA, it is acting as if it thinks
>it is (governments frequently refer to themselves as servants of the
>people).
I've noticed that irony too.
>However, it's an organisation that's now claimed a monopoly on
>it's area (although I've seen it claimed elsewhere here that PPA's would
>have to have a monopoly on the area they cover) and is 'out of control'.
A-C theorists don't generally make that claim, however - it's an incorrect (IMO) objection raised by minimalists (and certainly by any statists who take the trouble to investigate A-C). I think it says more about ingrained habits of thought than about the feasibility of a market for liberty.
>Strikes me as a likely situation in a libertarian society, and therefore
>something you ought to be able to cope with. So why aren't you?
Because I see no reason to believe that it's a likely situation. Why do think it is?
I've already given my reasons for considering it unlikely, and outlined possible defenses against the remote eventuality. How about addressing my points?
Dick