[clavalle]

>I don't mean the cost of weaponry. I mean that you have to pay thugs well, mostly because of the inherent risk I mentioned earlier. There is also risk of massive retaliation which can end up causing a lot of damage to humans and property.

If that were true people wouldn't be killed over pocket change today.

It seems to me that your position is only maintainable if you take many questionable assumptions as a given -- here are a couple:

-People are rational actors. -People will operate in an environment with good enough information available to make good decisions. (This would be tough to begin with but with overlapping rules in place this could really be a crippling burden in your purely market driven world.)

Keeping just those two assumptions intact seems...improbable.

[baddox]

> If that were true people wouldn't be killed over pocket change today.

There is no organization of individuals which routinely kill people over pocket change, is there? Obviously, single individuals can and do commit nearly any physical act you can conceive of. That doesn't mean that all acts are affordable to deploy on a massive scale, especially when you're worried about earning a profit.

I chuckled at your assumptions, because they apply equally (or I might argue, more so) to a challenge of the desirability of government. Remember, what we call "government" is really just a bunch of people that society recognizes as the sole legitimate purveyors of violence—that's the only difference. The only change I'm proposing is for society to recognize no individuals as the sole legitimate purveyors of violence, rather than a select few. The fact that people irrational and ignorant is all the more reason to not allow any of them to become the sole legitimate purveyors of violence.

[ricardobeat]

> There is no organization of individuals which routinely kill people over pocket change, is there?

Yes, there are. Frequently over nothing at all.

[baddox]

Please explain. The government is the only one I can think of.

[ricardobeat]

Organized crime, drug dealers, etc. often kill people for small offenses, "honor" crimes, ratting out, snooping or just for fun. Haven't you seen any mafia/yakuza movies? Real life is much, much worse.

[baddox]

Drug dealers in the form you're talking about can only exist when there is drug prohibition, and it's highly unlikely that a society based on polycentric law would prohibit drugs. The economics of a lot of organized crime also can be explained government.

[ricardobeat]

Even in a centralized state, the best, most efficient and reliable way to distribute illegal items would be total decentralization. Huge crime rings still exist though: where there is the opportunity to monopolize a resource, people will do it. That will only be exaggerated in your imagined anarcho-capitalist state. Even resources like water, energy, raw materials would be subject to monopolization, and very likely enforced through weaponry, not law. Can you see where that's going?

Suppose I kill someone. Now you'll turn to a private law company to judge/punish me. I then proceed to kill that company's employees. Will you now invoke a third private law provider in their name? Who will pay for it? Even if all the law providers were mutually insured, in this arrangement, as long as I can overpower each private entity, there is no effective law.

[clavalle]

>Remember, what we call "government" is really just a bunch of people that society recognizes as the sole legitimate purveyors of violence—that's the only difference.

Wrong. They are a group of people acting within a common framework of rules. These rules constrain their behavior, especially violent behavior. Part of this framework works to ensure no one person, small group or even large sub-group can act independently of these rules.

>The only change I'm proposing is for society to recognize no individuals as the sole legitimate purveyors of violence, rather than a select few.

This opens violent action to anyone who cares to engage in such behavior by whatever rules they see fit.

>The fact that people irrational and ignorant is all the more reason to not allow any of them to become the sole legitimate purveyors of violence.

I disagree. I think this is a fine argument for having a common set of rules for violent action agreed upon and enforced by as many people as possible. The irrational and ignorant will be held in check according to the common rules by everyone else with that responsibility.

[baddox]

I would argue that your characterization of government is the promise of utopia that critics of anarchy (I use that term very broadly to simply mean lack of a state) always claim the anarchists are proposing. It is simply not reflected in reality. A document empirically does not have authority over government, and voting is not a realistic way to keep government accountable to the people. An individual simply has no recourse to everyday government injustices (like taxation or prosecution for drug possession). If you insist that government represents the people, fine, but it's still tyranny of the majority/plurality. If the government doesn't represent the people, then it's government tyranny.

[clavalle]

>A document empirically does not have authority over government

No, but people agreeing to the tenants of the document do. This would be no different in your proposal only there will be exponentially more documents (agreements) to keep track of.

> and voting is not a realistic way to keep government accountable to the people.

Voting is not the only way to keep government accountable (legal action being another -- revolution or threat of revolution being yet another, civil disobedience etc, etc.), but as far as a basic way to make sure government will reflects the governed's will, voting does a decent job. The evidence for this is that more extreme and direct action is relatively rare...at least in the West.

>An individual simply has no recourse to everyday government injustices (like taxation or prosecution for drug possession).

Taxation is an injustice? How so? I don't find it to be unjust. I get a lot of value, personally, from the taxes I pay. And drug possession? I personally don't feel that drugs should be considered contraband but many people have. Those laws are changing, however, through voting no less, as public opinion shifts.

>If you insist that government represents the people, fine, but it's still tyranny of the majority/plurality.

I live in the United States. It is a Republic. This means that while most laws flow from the majority and everyone must live under those laws the rights of minorities are protected. Thus tyranny is held in check. Also, minority and majority are fluid terms. They are not so much tied to an individual as a gross bloc, but to individual opinions held by those individuals regarding the laws, rules and regulations under consideration. The same person will find themselves in the majority on some issues and the minority in others. In short, individuals often don't find their will wholly repressed by the rules of the majority. Also, the rules tend to be slow to change and cannot be applied arbitrarily. This is opposed to a tyranny where the rule is absolute, arbitrarily applied and make no room for unassailable rights.

[baddox]

> Taxation is an injustice? How so? I don't find it to be unjust. I get a lot of value, personally, from the taxes I pay.

Then pay the government voluntarily. I would have no problem with that. The problem is with taking people money when they aren't okay with it. I consider threatening someone with violence unless they pay you money to be unjust, which I don't think is that bizarre of an opinion.

> I personally don't feel that drugs should be considered contraband but many people have.

The error you're making is trying to represent government action as something voluntary or up to personal opinion. Just like with taxation, you say that you don't consider drugs contraband, but many people do. That would be fine if it was left at that. The problem is that the group people who do consider drugs to be contraband have implemented a vast organized system of violence against the other group. I don't have a problem with the difference in opinion. The problem is with the violence.

> I live in the United States. It is a Republic. This means that while most laws flow from the majority and everyone must live under those laws the rights of minorities are protected. Thus tyranny is held in check.

Did you go to public schools in the USA? I did, and I was repeatedly taught that as well. Later, when I actually looked into it myself, I realized it's simply not true. The USA government was founded in an attempt to create one of the smallest centralized governments in history, and in a relatively short period of time it has grown into one of the largest centralized governments in history. Just because a legal document, your school, and you yourself say that rights are protected doesn't mean they are.

> The same person will find themselves in the majority on some issues and the minority in others. In short, individuals often don't find their will wholly repressed by the rules of the majority.

Sure, no one is "wholly repressed," but that's a pretty low bar. I would prefer that no one be violently oppressed by the majority at all.

> This is opposed to a tyranny where the rule is absolute, arbitrarily applied and make no room for unassailable rights.

Have you followed the legislation, ongoing attempted legislation, and executive action regarding the "war on terror" in the past decade or so? American citizens have been assassinated in drone strikes without any pretense of legality. Alleged criminals or "terrorists" have been tortured and detained indefinitely without being charged. Prominent political leaders have explicitly said that the rule of law does not apply to people who are considered by the government to be a threat to the government.

[clavalle]

>The problem is with taking people money when they aren't okay with it.

Ok. Then would you keep the non-payers from enjoying the benefit of the infrastructure put into place by the payers?

> I consider threatening someone with violence unless they pay you money to be unjust, which I don't think is that bizarre of an opinion.

It is bizarre because it rarely comes to that. The threat of violence is quite a few well understood steps down in the process. What you propose is to replace those well understood steps to violent action with an overlapping, ever changing patchwork of rules. And wishing for violence to simply not exist is not an option.

>I would prefer that no one be violently oppressed by the majority at all.

Violence exists. It will always exist as long as people are mortal or can feel pain. The trick is controlling and limiting it's use. What you propose is replacing the potential of violent action by rules laid out by the majority by rules created by any individual or group that cares to fashion them and with the resources to carry them out against anybody or group that cannot muster a reprisal great enough to make the cost outweigh the benefits to the violently acting group.

>Just because a legal document, your school, and you yourself say that rights are protected doesn't mean they are. >Have you followed the legislation, ongoing attempted legislation, and executive action regarding the "war on terror" in the past decade or so? American citizens have been assassinated in drone strikes without any pretense of legality. Alleged criminals or "terrorists" have been tortured and detained indefinitely without being charged. Prominent political leaders have explicitly said that the rule of law does not apply to people who are considered by the government to be a threat to the government.

These things stand out because they are not the normal course of business.