Michael Lorrey wrote:
>> This seems like a fine idea, (presuming I didn't mind, in this example,)
>> but doesn't the concept of a PPF sort of undermine the whole point of
>> anarcho-capitalism? I mean, this is my real problem/question. If there's
>> only one PPF making the laws, how can we expect the laws to be formed
>> fairly under legal market principles? Isn't the PPF a government at this
>> point? (This was Nozick's argument.)
>Well, anyone who voluntarily lives in a PPF territory that recognizes no
>right-to-carry is basically agreeing to become governed in my book,
>recognize that they are slaves to the group, or are at least brainwashed
>groupthink. Such people really are a threat to sustainable ungoverned
>they may not actively want a government, but their own mental laziness and
>irresponsibility imply a need for one.
>Only those who insist that their PPA recognize their right to self defense
>level will remain ungoverned. Its a basic choice of being a man or a mouse.
This doesn't seem to cohere. For a good portion of America's history the United States had no gun laws. It was still a gov't, wasn't it? Wouldn't it still be a gov't if it "respected the citizens' right to defend themselves?" What exactly would that entail?
What exactly is the difference between a local gov't and a local PPF?
-GIVE ME IMMORTALITY OR GIVE ME DEATH-