[planfaster]

> (also note that we have a name for cells that refuse to coordinate with the rest of the organism and instead decide to grow as much as they like - they're called cancer).

Right, like the government, which is always growing (like cancer) and never dwindling, always passing new laws and regulations but never deprecating any, all the while refusing to coordinate with the rest of the organism since it claims to be exempt from the laws and regulations to which it subjects its cells/people.

Just like all the cells in the body go by one rule (don't grow unchecked), and cancer doesn't (it grows unchecked), so is everyone under government forced by it to go by one rule (do not initiate force) that government doesn't need to (it may initiate force unchecked).

Do you really not see the similarities?

I am not against a formalized set of rules and governance, I am for it. You are the one who seems to be against it since you are for an actor that does not abide by those rules and governance, namely the government. I am for everyone, without exception, abiding by a set of rules and governance, and the first rule is the one we all agree on so much that the government enforces on us, namely, do not initiate force.

Roads in the US were started by cyclists and war veterans:

http://www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/the-petition-that-pa...

Walter Block (philosopher) has a free book (all his books are free, as he has irrefutable arguments against intellectual property) on the problem of roads: https://mises.org/sites/default/files/The%20Privatization%20...

The problem of schools and police are not as hard (the government of South Africa uses only private police, non-Prussian school models do not require teachers, etc) as that of roads, so I leave them to you as an exercise.

[TeMPOraL]

Where does that "do not initiate force" thing comes from? I'm all fine with it if you can show me a system that would work without it. "Do not initiate force" means "do not punish defectors", "do not enforce coordination", means cancer. Seriously. Every human and animal society has members "initiating force" against people who defect, and that's what keeps those groups together. Even cells in your body often initiate force against ones that grow at the expense of everyone else, or intruders who risk destabilizing the system. We have a specialized branch of cells, called "immune system", that could be considered the police arm of the "government" of your brain.

It seems to me like you believe governments are aliens from outer space that land their alien militaries and alien parliment buildings on our planet and start doing the governing. Governments are actors created within the system; if they're extempt from anything, they're extempt from it by our own design. Like, you know, instead of everyone keeping everyone else under MAD stalemate, some time ago people agreed they'll let one group monopolize the violence, and it worked out for the better for everyone, and that group is by definition extempt from "no violence" rule.

> I am not against a formalized set of rules and governance, I am for it. You are the one who seems to be against it since you are for an actor that does not abide by those rules and governance, namely the government.

I honestly feel like you're trolling me at this point.

[planfaster]

Alternatively, why would you not be OK with a system where the rule that everyone must abide by is "do not initiate force"? I wonder what problems you have with it. Is there something you'd like to do, that would be impossible for you to do under that system?

Again, I am for a formalized set of rules, and I am suggesting that the rule be "do not initiate force". You on the other hand, have not suggested any formalized set of rules, as something cannot be a rule if everyone is helpless to keep the biggest offender from breaking it.

> "do not enforce coordination", means cancer

You say things like that, and you think I'm trolling you? Not to mention, the word is "exempt", not "extempt".

> Governments are actors created within the system

This is meaningless when both good and bad are created "from within" according to you. If I pointed to US History and asked you were Central Banks on the good side or was Andrew Jackson on the good side, I'd say Jackson, but you'd still point out the Central Banks "are actors created within the system". So to me this is meaningless. It's better to talk about how much consent the government has. Recent Gallup polls show more than half of Americans fear their government. I'd say fearing and consenting do not go together. So it seems the people are saying they'd like to treat the cancerous government within our country.

> some time ago people agreed they'll let one group monopolize the violence

They did, or do you assume they did? If the people did agree to this, as you said, then please point me to the historical documents, like a social contract being signed by everyone in a given territory. Otherwise, don't make up facts while trolling me and calling me a troll.