| Anarcho-Libertarianism does not as far as I know have an answer to a basic real-world problem: Humans are social and always form affinity groups. Groups have more power (by any definition) than individuals. Absent enforcement, groups will invariably infringe at will on the rights of individuals or minorities. QED a defining purpose of any "state" is to defend individuals' liberties, on their behalf, against such actors. There are many mechanisms and descriptions of this activity, but, the bottom line is always the same. This is as true for the "free market" as it is for the "free market of ideas" or the contemporary ordering of law and punishment. The state has to be the ultimate authority, to prevent smaller aggregations from stripping minorities and individuals of their own liberty. No proposed alternative system has so far demonstrated stable viability. That the examples we live within are terrible does not mean they are not also the least bad viable alternatives. Personally I may think this is a shame, but, oh well. Heinlein loved to portray rationalist societies in which ad hoc aggregations formed just long enough to enforce a purported majority-recognized rational moral order, without need for formal constitutional law or persistent institutions with formal institutional memory. When I was 15 I thought this was how things should be. At 50 I am certain that it shall never be so, not with the limitations of our actual evolved embodiment. |
Not actually demonstrated. you should say "QED a state is a group organized to infringe at will on the rights of individuals and minorities."