Why I couldn’t accept ACism
 

At first i agree with minimum state involvement in my body, life and property, i support minimum taxation and idea of minimizing state, but definitely not to the degree that ACism support.

I might be wrong (please correct me here), but IMO the quality of life would extremely deteriorate for all (maybe not for less than 0.1% of population). Security issues, human rights, environment would extremely deteriorate and corruption and power of force would become extremely higher. Social inequality and violence would extremely increase. I'd rather have a small government and smaller taxes, but with state run institutions like courts, military, police and social programs. I don't believe i would feel safer and more free in case of private repressive institutions like police or courts. Can someone enlighten me here, please?

Re: Why I couldn’t accept ACism
 

[ QUOTE ]
At first i agree with minimum state involvement in my body, life and property, i support minimum taxation and idea of minimizing state, but definitely not to the degree that ACism support.

I might be wrong (please correct me here), but IMO the quality of life would extremely deteriorate for all (maybe not for less than 0.1% of population). Security issues, human rights, environment would extremely deteriorate and corruption and power of force would become extremely higher. Social inequality and violence would extremely increase. I'd rather have a small government and smaller taxes, but with state run institutions like courts, military, police and social programs. I don't believe i would feel safer and more free in case of private repressive institutions like police or courts. Can someone enlighten me here, please?

[/ QUOTE ]

As far as I can tell you've just supported the conservative (Republican) ideology.

EDIT: I'm new to the Politics forum and I'm wondering if I totally discredit myself from the start by quoting Rush Limbaugh?

Re: Why I couldn’t accept ACism
 

[ QUOTE ]
At first i agree with minimum state involvement in my body, life and property, i support minimum taxation and idea of minimizing state, but definitely not to the degree that ACism support.

I might be wrong (please correct me here), but IMO the quality of life would extremely deteriorate for all (maybe not for less than 0.1% of population). Security issues, human rights, environment would extremely deteriorate and corruption and power of force would become extremely higher. Social inequality and violence would extremely increase. I'd rather have a small government and smaller taxes, but with state run institutions like courts, military, police and social programs. I don't believe i would feel safer and more free in case of private repressive institutions like police or courts. Can someone enlighten me here, please?

[/ QUOTE ]

All I see is you committing the fallacy of assuming "If government doesn't do it, it won't be done."

Do you really want to base your support of the state on an obvious fallacy?

Re: Why I couldn’t accept ACism
 

Even if everything you say is true. Why does your fear that certain things won't get done under AC give you or others the right to take money from people against their will? Stealing is wrong except when people are stealing to provide the things I want.

Re: Why I couldn’t accept ACism
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
At first i agree with minimum state involvement in my body, life and property, i support minimum taxation and idea of minimizing state, but definitely not to the degree that ACism support.

I might be wrong (please correct me here), but IMO the quality of life would extremely deteriorate for all (maybe not for less than 0.1% of population). Security issues, human rights, environment would extremely deteriorate and corruption and power of force would become extremely higher. Social inequality and violence would extremely increase. I'd rather have a small government and smaller taxes, but with state run institutions like courts, military, police and social programs. I don't believe i would feel safer and more free in case of private repressive institutions like police or courts. Can someone enlighten me here, please?

[/ QUOTE ]

As far as I can tell you've just supported the conservative (Republican) ideology.

EDIT: I'm new to the Politics forum and I'm wondering if I totally discredit myself from the start by quoting Rush Limbaugh?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what a lot of republicans say they support. Their actions speak louder than their words.

Re: Why I couldn’t accept ACism
 

[ QUOTE ]
That's what a lot of republicans say they support. Their actions speak louder than their words.

[/ QUOTE ]

I grudgingly have to agree with you.

Re: Why I couldn’t accept ACism
 

[ QUOTE ]
Social inequality and violence would extremely increase. I'd rather have a small government and smaller taxes, but with state run institutions like courts, military, police and social programs.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
After controlling for legally relevant factors, socioeconomic factors, and legal contextual factors, it was found that blacks convicted of cocaine offenses and Hispanics convicted of cocaine and marijuana offenses were sentenced more harshly than white offenders.

[/ QUOTE ]

abstract

Re: Why I couldn’t accept ACism
 

[ QUOTE ]
the quality of life would extremely deteriorate for all (maybe not for less than 0.1% of population).

[/ QUOTE ]

I will pick at this one thing, which I think exposed the problem with your line of thinking.

There is no such thing as a universal measure of "quality of life". There is no objective formula you can apply to measure the quality of each individual's life, nor can you impose universally applied restrictions and limitations on the parameters of peoples' lives to "maximize" the hypothetical aggregate quality of life formula. The quality of a person's life can be measured only by the subjective evaluation of that life from the unique subjective evaluation "formula" of each individual. The question should not be "Are the lives or others sufficiently "good" based on my subjective analysis of their lives", the question should be "Who should evaluate an individual life, and what avenues do they have a right to pursue if they don't like the evaluation." The ACist will say that the only person with a right to perform the evaluation of a life is the individual himself, and the only legitimate avenues they have a right to pursue to change that evaluation are those involving mutually voluntary interactions with others.

Arguing about the relative outcomes of individual voluntary societies versus coercive collective societies is not the ultimate argument. The ultimate argument is whether or not you think your life should be evaluated by others and whether or not others can force you to change based on their valuations. The observation that many programs of forced change imposed on individuals are poorly conceived and have undesirable outcomes is a mark against coercive states, but it is not the blackest of marks. Before you even consider whether or not the outcome of a coercive state justifies it's existence, you have to engage the question of whether or not the coercion is a blatant act of evil in the first place. If you accept that it is evil, your refusal to accept the outcome is irrelevant.

Re: Why I couldn’t accept ACism
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
At first i agree with minimum state involvement in my body, life and property, i support minimum taxation and idea of minimizing state, but definitely not to the degree that ACism support.

I might be wrong (please correct me here), but IMO the quality of life would extremely deteriorate for all (maybe not for less than 0.1% of population). Security issues, human rights, environment would extremely deteriorate and corruption and power of force would become extremely higher. Social inequality and violence would extremely increase. I'd rather have a small government and smaller taxes, but with state run institutions like courts, military, police and social programs. I don't believe i would feel safer and more free in case of private repressive institutions like police or courts. Can someone enlighten me here, please?

[/ QUOTE ]

All I see is you committing the fallacy of assuming "If government doesn't do it, it won't be done."

Do you really want to base your support of the state on an obvious fallacy?

[/ QUOTE ]

It is no more a fallacy than "Even f the government does take care of the problem the free market can do it better".

Re: Why I couldn’t accept ACism
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
At first i agree with minimum state involvement in my body, life and property, i support minimum taxation and idea of minimizing state, but definitely not to the degree that ACism support.

I might be wrong (please correct me here), but IMO the quality of life would extremely deteriorate for all (maybe not for less than 0.1% of population). Security issues, human rights, environment would extremely deteriorate and corruption and power of force would become extremely higher. Social inequality and violence would extremely increase. I'd rather have a small government and smaller taxes, but with state run institutions like courts, military, police and social programs. I don't believe i would feel safer and more free in case of private repressive institutions like police or courts. Can someone enlighten me here, please?

[/ QUOTE ]

All I see is you committing the fallacy of assuming "If government doesn't do it, it won't be done."

Do you really want to base your support of the state on an obvious fallacy?

[/ QUOTE ]

It is no more a fallacy than "Even f the government does take care of the problem the free market can do it better".

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct, which is why many ACists on this board painstakingly and patiently provide detailed and logically sound arguments for why the free market would provide certain services better than the state on a case by case basis.

Re: Why I couldn’t accept ACism
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
At first i agree with minimum state involvement in my body, life and property, i support minimum taxation and idea of minimizing state, but definitely not to the degree that ACism support.

I might be wrong (please correct me here), but IMO the quality of life would extremely deteriorate for all (maybe not for less than 0.1% of population). Security issues, human rights, environment would extremely deteriorate and corruption and power of force would become extremely higher. Social inequality and violence would extremely increase. I'd rather have a small government and smaller taxes, but with state run institutions like courts, military, police and social programs. I don't believe i would feel safer and more free in case of private repressive institutions like police or courts. Can someone enlighten me here, please?

[/ QUOTE ]

All I see is you committing the fallacy of assuming "If government doesn't do it, it won't be done."

Do you really want to base your support of the state on an obvious fallacy?

[/ QUOTE ]

It is no more a fallacy than "Even f the government does take care of the problem the free market can do it better".

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct, which is why many ACists on this board painstakingly and patiently provide detailed and logically sound arguments for why the free market would provide certain services better than the state on a case by case basis.

[/ QUOTE ]

Incorrect. The logic is built into the market system itself. By providing many options and allowing each individual as much choice as possible the seller of a product must convince the consumer that his is the best, he must satisfy a consumer's demands better. You don't need a step by step for each individual process since this simple concept covers them all.

Re: Why I couldn’t accept ACism
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
At first i agree with minimum state involvement in my body, life and property, i support minimum taxation and idea of minimizing state, but definitely not to the degree that ACism support.

I might be wrong (please correct me here), but IMO the quality of life would extremely deteriorate for all (maybe not for less than 0.1% of population). Security issues, human rights, environment would extremely deteriorate and corruption and power of force would become extremely higher. Social inequality and violence would extremely increase. I'd rather have a small government and smaller taxes, but with state run institutions like courts, military, police and social programs. I don't believe i would feel safer and more free in case of private repressive institutions like police or courts. Can someone enlighten me here, please?

[/ QUOTE ]

All I see is you committing the fallacy of assuming "If government doesn't do it, it won't be done."

Do you really want to base your support of the state on an obvious fallacy?

[/ QUOTE ]

It is no more a fallacy than "Even f the government does take care of the problem the free market can do it better".

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct, which is why many ACists on this board painstakingly and patiently provide detailed and logically sound arguments for why the free market would provide certain services better than the state on a case by case basis.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except they claim that it provides ALL services better than the state without detailed and logical support for many of them.

Re: Why I couldn’t accept ACism
 

[ QUOTE ]


Incorrect. The logic is built into the market system itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

An unsupported axiom.

Re: Why I couldn’t accept ACism
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Incorrect. The logic is built into the market system itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

An unsupported axiom.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you wish a reading list I suggest you start with "the wealth of nations" and will supply more titles which support the notion of competition improving options once you have demonstrated an understanding of the content.

Re: Why I couldn’t accept ACism
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Incorrect. The logic is built into the market system itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

An unsupported axiom.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess you don't know what an "axiom" is because this isn't one. Further, all axioms are unsupported.

Re: Why I couldn’t accept ACism
 

[ QUOTE ]
Except they claim that it provides ALL services better than the state without detailed and logical support for many of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

No they don't. Many have explicitly listed things government is better at providing. Concentration camps, for example.

Re: Why I couldn’t accept ACism
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Incorrect. The logic is built into the market system itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

An unsupported axiom.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you wish a reading list I suggest you start with "the wealth of nations" and will supply more titles which support the notion of competition improving options once you have demonstrated an understanding of the content.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont need a reading list, thank you. Im sure I am at least as well read as you are. There are many areas debated here where the market cannot be shown to be demonstrably superior in results, much less superior in results at equal or lower cost.

Re: Why I couldn’t accept ACism
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Social inequality and violence would extremely increase. I'd rather have a small government and smaller taxes, but with state run institutions like courts, military, police and social programs.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
After controlling for legally relevant factors, socioeconomic factors, and legal contextual factors, it was found that blacks convicted of cocaine offenses and Hispanics convicted of cocaine and marijuana offenses were sentenced more harshly than white offenders.

[/ QUOTE ]

abstract

[/ QUOTE ]

Much violence is also fostered by artificial incentives created by government regulations.

Re: Why I couldn’t accept ACism
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Incorrect. The logic is built into the market system itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

An unsupported axiom.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess you don't know what an "axiom" is because this isn't one. Further, all axioms are unsupported.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.deathrowtshirts.com/image...ARTMENT_DR.jpg

Re: Why I couldn’t accept ACism
 

I'm not necessarily an ACist, but I must point out that the title of your post would more accurately reflect the concepts if it were: "Why I would choose to impose Statism".

natedogg

Re: Why I couldn’t accept ACism
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Incorrect. The logic is built into the market system itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

An unsupported axiom.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess you don't know what an "axiom" is because this isn't one. Further, all axioms are unsupported.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.deathrowtshirts.com/image...ARTMENT_DR.jpg

[/ QUOTE ]

I forget, is he the dude that bills 500/hr to taxpayers for whatever the hell he does?

I have him on ignore but it's fun to read the replies to his posts from pvn and others lol

Re: Why I couldn’t accept ACism
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you wish a reading list I suggest you start with "the wealth of nations"

[/ QUOTE ]

written by... a statist

Re: Why I couldn’t accept ACism
 

[ QUOTE ]
All I see is you committing the fallacy of assuming "If government doesn't do it, it won't be done."

Do you really want to base your support of the state on an obvious fallacy?

[/ QUOTE ]

Thx for all responses. Here's why i believe it would be worse.

1. About security issues, private police & courts: don't you believe it would very increased corruption? Do you believe private police could be equal to all. Do you think private courts would treat equally everyone? It's not perfect nowadays, but when they'd be run by profit, I can easily see it would worsen.
How much afford would be put in solving crimes? As much as the victim is prepared to pay? Or who would be paying those bills? Overwhelming majority would be handicapped.

2. About crime/wars: in ACism everyone should protect himself/his property. That sounds good in equal society with equal chances for progress. I have Darfur crisis on my mind. People live there with less than 1$ per day. How could they buy weapons for their self-defense when they are dying because of food shortage? Ok, one would say they would get guns by charity of wealthier. But the opposite site have planes/rockets/copters/etc. what now? Should they get armed to that degree or they’d be left in mercy of the attackers? The society would just turn around in ACism, well siht happens all the time? It’s not difficult to imagine there would be very increasing need for weapons among groups, which is not something I’d like to see. Because of money spent on arming, there would be less money available for spending in education, health, social programs, etc. Also, everything is leading to much more violent world than it is today.

3. Property of land. ACism idea would sound acceptable when you have unlimited resources/land. What would happen when all land is sold out? What would be with people without land? There are homeless people now, but in ACism i'm sure noone would allow them to stay on the property unless seeing something useful. Where would they go? Would they become slaves? Same with no minimum payment, so i imagine people would be working basicly for a piece of bread in many places. Workers exploitation would be even worse than during the first industrial revolution (I could be convinced otherwise).
4. Special resources. Example on mine of diamonds/oil well. In ACism the company should be able to protect itself/its property or the others would come to seize it. I’d say this is leading to barbarism.

5. protecting other species: people would be run by profit. I can imagine fishery - ten thousands companies catching as much as they can. I am quite sure it's utopian to think most of them would act in a way of preserving endangered species or more than needed for preserving the number of animals. If ‘we’ have that in our mind, i'd be sure thousands of others in competition wouldn’t have those views. Same with animals on the ground. If there are 200 siberian tigers in wildlife it’s clear they’d distinct. Ain’t it better that I catch them as many and as soon as possible, than leave them to the others? Would there be any regulations/laws protecting other species (or that isn't necessary)?

6. Environmental issue: what would stop one company polluting the environment above all limits. After all, it is competing against hundred thousands of others – why would one company want to preserve the environment/global warming when thousands of others wouldn’t? Why would one company choose not to harvest tropical rainforest in Amazonia or elsewhere? Would (should) there be any regulations?

7. About quality of life: Maybe its true that the quality of life can’t be measured by number, but I’m quite convinced that ACism would increase social inequality. Lots of poorer and a few wealthier globally. Am i wrong here?
I’d easily imagine private forces cruising around/protecting neighbourhoods, army personnel in shops/companies/everywhere. Would I feel safer? Nope. Would I feel any freedom in that? Nope. Wouldn’t certain human rights just evaporate? Would I like that? Nope. All the time I should be thinking about my protection and huge money should be invested in that? I’d say anarchy would have big implications on the quality of my life.

Also, reading history from the beginning until nowadays it’s obvious people/groups/countries nowadays need higher instances watching over their behaviour. People like to live (or visit places) where they don’t feel endangered either by violence / suppression / where they don’t have to think too much about their security or property and where they feel free and independent. I’d say a man need some regulations and institutions to keep humanity/tolerance/non-violence on higher level. Thanks for your thoughts.

Re: Why I couldn’t accept ACism
 

[ QUOTE ]
1. About security issues, private police & courts: don't you believe it would very increased corruption? Do you believe private police could be equal to all. Do you think private courts would treat equally everyone? It's not perfect nowadays, but when they'd be run by profit, I can easily see it would worsen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Monopoly breeds corruption. Competition weeds corruption out. This should be quite obvious.

There's basically a free market in diplomas. Anyone can write "PhD" on a pieve of paper and sell it to another person. Yet the level of corruption in education is quite low. Sure, some people sell diplomas that have no basis in reality. And they're ignored by the market.

How much do you think a Harvard diploma would be worth if Harvard just sold them to whoever wanted one?

A diploma is really not much different than a judgement. The worth of it is highly dependent upon the reputation of the issuer.

[ QUOTE ]
How much afford would be put in solving crimes? As much as the victim is prepared to pay? Or who would be paying those bills? Overwhelming majority would be handicapped.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to think poor people might need some help paying for legal services. Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is?

[ QUOTE ]
2. About crime/wars: in ACism everyone should protect himself/his property. That sounds good in equal society with equal chances for progress. I have Darfur crisis on my mind. People live there with less than 1$ per day. How could they buy weapons for their self-defense when they are dying because of food shortage? Ok, one would say they would get guns by charity of wealthier. But the opposite site have planes/rockets/copters/etc. what now? Should they get armed to that degree or they’d be left in mercy of the attackers? The society would just turn around in ACism, well siht happens all the time? It’s not difficult to imagine there would be very increasing need for weapons among groups, which is not something I’d like to see. Because of money spent on arming, there would be less money available for spending in education, health, social programs, etc. Also, everything is leading to much more violent world than it is today.

[/ QUOTE ]

So as an example of how horrible AC would be, you pick a scenario where a state is involved in violence against innocents. Further, you pick a scenario with a distinct LACK of capital.

[ QUOTE ]
3. Property of land. ACism idea would sound acceptable when you have unlimited resources/land. What would happen when all land is sold out? What would be with people without land? There are homeless people now, but in ACism i'm sure noone would allow them to stay on the property unless seeing something useful. Where would they go? Would they become slaves? Same with no minimum payment, so i imagine people would be working basicly for a piece of bread in many places. Workers exploitation would be even worse than during the first industrial revolution (I could be convinced otherwise).

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't this in the FAQ? It should be.

[ QUOTE ]
4. Special resources. Example on mine of diamonds/oil well. In ACism the company should be able to protect itself/its property or the others would come to seize it. I’d say this is leading to barbarism.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is this any different under a state? You still have to protect valuable resources from criminals (and OTHER STATES!).

[ QUOTE ]
5. protecting other species: people would be run by profit. I can imagine fishery - ten thousands companies catching as much as they can. I am quite sure it's utopian to think most of them would act in a way of preserving endangered species or more than needed for preserving the number of animals.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just about every "endangered" species happens to be an animal which governments forbid people from owning. Coincidence?

Why do you think cows and pigs have not become extinct?

[ QUOTE ]
If ‘we’ have that in our mind, i'd be sure thousands of others in competition wouldn’t have those views. Same with animals on the ground. If there are 200 siberian tigers in wildlife it’s clear they’d distinct. Ain’t it better that I catch them as many and as soon as possible, than leave them to the others? Would there be any regulations/laws protecting other species (or that isn't necessary)?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're describing the tragedy of the commons. A result of state intervention.

[ QUOTE ]
6. Environmental issue: what would stop one company polluting the environment above all limits.

[/ QUOTE ]

Property rights. You pollute my land, you're liable for damages. Governements explicitly ALLOW polluters to pollute.

[ QUOTE ]
7. About quality of life: Maybe its true that the quality of life can’t be measured by number, but I’m quite convinced that ACism would increase social inequality. Lots of poorer and a few wealthier globally. Am i wrong here?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea. Why should we just accept your guess?

[ QUOTE ]
I’d easily imagine private forces cruising around/protecting neighbourhoods, army personnel in shops/companies/everywhere. Would I feel safer? Nope. Would I feel any freedom in that? Nope. Wouldn’t certain human rights just evaporate? Would I like that? Nope. All the time I should be thinking about my protection and huge money should be invested in that? I’d say anarchy would have big implications on the quality of my life.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can "easily" imagine all of that under a state.

I can "easily" imagine none of that occuring without a state.

Your imaginary daydreams are not a compelling argument.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, reading history from the beginning until nowadays it’s obvious people/groups/countries nowadays need higher instances watching over their behaviour. People like to live (or visit places) where they don’t feel endangered either by violence / suppression / where they don’t have to think too much about their security or property and where they feel free and independent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like a market opportunity for people to provide safety, and not provide the totalitarian nightmare world that you "easily" imagine.

[ QUOTE ]
I’d say a man need some regulations and institutions to keep humanity/tolerance/non-violence on higher level. Thanks for your thoughts.

[/ QUOTE ]

So people are bad, therefore they need other (bad) people in charge of them?

Re: Why I couldn’t accept ACism
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you wish a reading list I suggest you start with "the wealth of nations"

[/ QUOTE ]

written by... a statist

[/ QUOTE ]
So was Human Action. ZOMG!!!

Re: Why I couldn’t accept ACism
 

[ QUOTE ]
At first i agree with minimum state involvement in my body, life and property, i support minimum taxation and idea of minimizing state, but definitely not to the degree that ACism support.

[/ QUOTE ]

You should think about why you support those things. Is it just some whimsical idea that those are the things you support? Or is there some underlying logical justification. It sounds like you subconsciously conclude the same thing that ACers conclude (that private property owners will always act more efficiently). If not, why do you believe things like less tax is good? Is it just greed, or is there some very real reason? But it seems like you haven't yet taken it to the conscious level of reasoning out specifically why you support the things you claim to support.

I used to consider myself a minarchist. But the thing about minarchy is that the whole logic behind the ideal of a hands off government is that people can't outplay any market. So, we can't outplay any market. So it's really just contradictory to what you think you're supporting to think that you can find certain instances where the belief just flies out the window. Minarchy ultimately becomes nothing more than a preference, which if you choose to hold it, fine. But if you're looking to logically examine why minarchy will be more efficient, you'll be fighting a losing battle. Centralization is inefficient because it's inefficient; not because it's negotiable and just happens to be bad for some intangible reason sometimes.

Re: Why I couldn’t accept ACism
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
At first i agree with minimum state involvement in my body, life and property, i support minimum taxation and idea of minimizing state, but definitely not to the degree that ACism support.

I might be wrong (please correct me here), but IMO the quality of life would extremely deteriorate for all (maybe not for less than 0.1% of population). Security issues, human rights, environment would extremely deteriorate and corruption and power of force would become extremely higher. Social inequality and violence would extremely increase. I'd rather have a small government and smaller taxes, but with state run institutions like courts, military, police and social programs. I don't believe i would feel safer and more free in case of private repressive institutions like police or courts. Can someone enlighten me here, please?

[/ QUOTE ]

All I see is you committing the fallacy of assuming "If government doesn't do it, it won't be done."

Do you really want to base your support of the state on an obvious fallacy?

[/ QUOTE ]

It is no more a fallacy than "Even f the government does take care of the problem the free market can do it better".

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct, which is why many ACists on this board painstakingly and patiently provide detailed and logically sound arguments for why the free market would provide certain services better than the state on a case by case basis.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except they claim that it provides ALL services better than the state without detailed and logical support for many of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't. Thus have you been proven wrong.

Re: Why I couldn’t accept ACism
 

[ QUOTE ]
7. About quality of life: Maybe its true that the quality of life can’t be measured by number, but I’m quite convinced that ACism would increase social inequality.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. This statement is internally inconsistent. If quality can't be objectively measured, relative quality can't be objectively measured either. Sure, you may see an increase in "inequality" based on your personal subjective evaluation of "quality" but the whole point is that your personal subjective measure is not sufficient to force others to act differently.

[ QUOTE ]
Lots of poorer and a few wealthier globally. Am i wrong here?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nobody knows. Even the people that tell you that we MUST have a state to redistribute wealth don't know. Furthermore they are quite possibly WRONG because a lot long-term increases in the the quality of life for people (even by the quality of life standards subjectively set by the statists) are due to competition and free enterprise, not welfare.

[ QUOTE ]
I’d easily imagine private forces cruising around/protecting neighbourhoods, army personnel in shops/companies/everywhere. Would I feel safer? Nope. Would I feel any freedom in that? Nope. Wouldn’t certain human rights just evaporate? Would I like that? Nope. All the time I should be thinking about my protection and huge money should be invested in that? I’d say anarchy would have big implications on the quality of my life.

[/ QUOTE ]

This does not mean that you should support a system that uses violence to deliver the quality of life you want. The point is not that freedom would benefit every single individual according to their personal preferences, the point is that the people who are getting an improved personal quality of life by forcibly taking resources from others are not justified in doing so.

Re: Why I couldn’t accept ACism
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. About security issues, private police & courts: don't you believe it would very increased corruption? Do you believe private police could be equal to all. Do you think private courts would treat equally everyone? It's not perfect nowadays, but when they'd be run by profit, I can easily see it would worsen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Monopoly breeds corruption. Competition weeds corruption out. <font color="red">That's true. But at the same time lack of control/applicable laws breed corruption even more. </font> This should be quite obvious.

There's basically a free market in diplomas. Anyone can write "PhD" on a pieve of paper and sell it to another person. Yet the level of corruption in education is quite low. Sure, some people sell diplomas that have no basis in reality. And they're ignored by the market.

How much do you think a Harvard diploma would be worth if Harvard just sold them to whoever wanted one?

A diploma is really not much different than a judgement. The worth of it is highly dependent upon the reputation of the issuer.
<font color="red">Nothing wrong with your example. Same would work for shops/medical institutions/insurance companies. But i doubt it would work with repressive institutions. I'd always rather live in a society where basic human rights are equal for all no matter how wealthy people are (not perfect situation today, but they are at least to some degree now).</font>

[ QUOTE ]
How much afford would be put in solving crimes? As much as the victim is prepared to pay? Or who would be paying those bills? Overwhelming majority would be handicapped.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to think poor people might need some help paying for legal services. Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is? <font color="red">I'd always stand that under law everybody should be treated equally no matter how wealthy he is/skin color/religion beliefs/etc. You're basicly saying status should run our freedom / human rights / laws / punishments / safety issues. Not kind of government i'd like to live in.</font>

[ QUOTE ]
2. About crime/wars: in ACism everyone should protect himself/his property. That sounds good in equal society with equal chances for progress. I have Darfur crisis on my mind. People live there with less than 1$ per day. How could they buy weapons for their self-defense when they are dying because of food shortage? Ok, one would say they would get guns by charity of wealthier. But the opposite site have planes/rockets/copters/etc. what now? Should they get armed to that degree or they’d be left in mercy of the attackers? The society would just turn around in ACism, well siht happens all the time? It’s not difficult to imagine there would be very increasing need for weapons among groups, which is not something I’d like to see. Because of money spent on arming, there would be less money available for spending in education, health, social programs, etc. Also, everything is leading to much more violent world than it is today.

[/ QUOTE ]

So as an example of how horrible AC would be, you pick a scenario where a state is involved in violence against innocents. Further, you pick a scenario with a distinct LACK of capital. <font color="red">So what would (should) happen in Darfur under ACism? Who cares, it's their problem? Or would it be; ok, our military will destroy your enemies, but you will have to pay for it by giving us your land and work for us next 30 years (= become our slaves)?</font>

[ QUOTE ]
3. Property of land. ACism idea would sound acceptable when you have unlimited resources/land. What would happen when all land is sold out? What would be with people without land? There are homeless people now, but in ACism i'm sure noone would allow them to stay on the property unless seeing something useful. Where would they go? Would they become slaves? Same with no minimum payment, so i imagine people would be working basicly for a piece of bread in many places. Workers exploitation would be even worse than during the first industrial revolution (I could be convinced otherwise).

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't this in the FAQ? It should be.<font color="red">I couldn't find it: would workers exploitation be at the similar degree or even worse than during the first or second industrial revolution? </font>

[ QUOTE ]
4. Special resources. Example on mine of diamonds/oil well. In ACism the company should be able to protect itself/its property or the others would come to seize it. I’d say this is leading to barbarism.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is this any different under a state? You still have to protect valuable resources from criminals (and OTHER STATES!). <font color="red">Dependable how much democratic (human / avoiding double standards) state is - it is usually protecting well those companies / individuals / groups. I can easily see large societies evaporating in ACism, if something valuable would be found around. </font>

[ QUOTE ]
5. protecting other species: people would be run by profit. I can imagine fishery - ten thousands companies catching as much as they can. I am quite sure it's utopian to think most of them would act in a way of preserving endangered species or more than needed for preserving the number of animals.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just about every "endangered" species happens to be an animal which governments forbid people from owning. Coincidence?<font color="red">Causes and consequences. For most animals you're talking about consequences - you should find reasons. Whales/pandas/koalas/tigers/gorillas are not endangered because government forbid people from owning, it's because people are killing them.</font>

Why do you think cows and pigs have not become extinct?
<font color="red">There's a good reason i guess. So, you're saying who cares if thousands of species would extinct every year - the reason is they are not profitable, so who cares anyway?</font>

[ QUOTE ]
If ‘we’ have that in our mind, i'd be sure thousands of others in competition wouldn’t have those views. Same with animals on the ground. If there are 200 siberian tigers in wildlife it’s clear they’d distinct. Ain’t it better that I catch them as many and as soon as possible, than leave them to the others? Would there be any regulations/laws protecting other species (or that isn't necessary)?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're describing the tragedy of the commons. A result of state intervention.<font color="red">Same as above</font>

[ QUOTE ]
6. Environmental issue: what would stop one company polluting the environment above all limits.

[/ QUOTE ]

Property rights. You pollute my land, you're liable for damages. Governements explicitly ALLOW polluters to pollute. <font color="red">'You pollute my land, you're liable for damages' is working now isn't it? In addition we have (or should have) some regulations about polluting. You're saying first is enough, when we all see both is not nearly enough for saving environment. Not to say again how (and who would be able of course) would someone provide facts about global warming by one factory. Mission impossible.</font>

[ QUOTE ]
7. About quality of life: Maybe its true that the quality of life can’t be measured by number, but I’m quite convinced that ACism would increase social inequality. Lots of poorer and a few wealthier globally. Am i wrong here?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea. Why should we just accept your guess?<font color="red">Would you say it wouldn't increase it? </font>

[ QUOTE ]
I’d easily imagine private forces cruising around/protecting neighbourhoods, army personnel in shops/companies/everywhere. Would I feel safer? Nope. Would I feel any freedom in that? Nope. Wouldn’t certain human rights just evaporate? Would I like that? Nope. All the time I should be thinking about my protection and huge money should be invested in that? I’d say anarchy would have big implications on the quality of my life.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can "easily" imagine all of that under a state.
I can "easily" imagine none of that occuring without a state.
Your imaginary daydreams are not a compelling argument.
<font color="red">It's true, i can imagine it under state as well, but hopefully it's not happening. But i imagine it very easily under anarchy. </font>

[ QUOTE ]
Also, reading history from the beginning until nowadays it’s obvious people/groups/countries nowadays need higher instances watching over their behaviour. People like to live (or visit places) where they don’t feel endangered either by violence / suppression / where they don’t have to think too much about their security or property and where they feel free and independent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like a market opportunity for people to provide safety, and not provide the totalitarian nightmare world that you "easily" imagine. <font color="red">True. Still, i'd much rather live or visit places where those wouldn't be around. I'm maybe strange, but guys with guns around doesn't make me feel safer, but rather otherwise. </font>

[ QUOTE ]
I’d say a man need some regulations and institutions to keep humanity/tolerance/non-violence on higher level. Thanks for your thoughts.

[/ QUOTE ]

So people are bad, therefore they need other (bad) people in charge of them?
<font color="red">I'd say regulations are need unless we want more bad people around and more crime. Moreover, every time when there are leaks in any law, that law is abused. Why would i think it could be otherwise?</font>

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Why I couldn’t accept ACism
 

[ QUOTE ]
You're basicly saying status should run our freedom / human rights / laws / punishments / safety issues. Not kind of government i'd like to live in.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.courier-journal.com/blogs...2,0-781304.jpg

Ya, cause status NEVER butts its head in when the state monopolizes justice. Human nature is not perfect. But centralization exacerbates the problem.

Re: Why I couldn’t accept ACism
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. About security issues, private police &amp; courts: don't you believe it would very increased corruption? Do you believe private police could be equal to all. Do you think private courts would treat equally everyone? It's not perfect nowadays, but when they'd be run by profit, I can easily see it would worsen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Monopoly breeds corruption. Competition weeds corruption out. <font color="red">That's true. But at the same time lack of control/applicable laws breed corruption even more. </font> This should be quite obvious.

There's basically a free market in diplomas. Anyone can write "PhD" on a pieve of paper and sell it to another person. Yet the level of corruption in education is quite low. Sure, some people sell diplomas that have no basis in reality. And they're ignored by the market.

How much do you think a Harvard diploma would be worth if Harvard just sold them to whoever wanted one?

A diploma is really not much different than a judgement. The worth of it is highly dependent upon the reputation of the issuer.
<font color="red">Nothing wrong with your example. Same would work for shops/medical institutions/insurance companies. But i doubt it would work with repressive institutions. I'd always rather live in a society where basic human rights are equal for all no matter how wealthy people are (not perfect situation today, but they are at least to some degree now).</font>

[ QUOTE ]
How much afford would be put in solving crimes? As much as the victim is prepared to pay? Or who would be paying those bills? Overwhelming majority would be handicapped.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to think poor people might need some help paying for legal services. Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is? <font color="red">I'd always stand that under law everybody should be treated equally no matter how wealthy he is/skin color/religion beliefs/etc. You're basicly saying status should run our freedom / human rights / laws / punishments / safety issues. Not kind of government i'd like to live in.</font>

[ QUOTE ]
2. About crime/wars: in ACism everyone should protect himself/his property. That sounds good in equal society with equal chances for progress. I have Darfur crisis on my mind. People live there with less than 1$ per day. How could they buy weapons for their self-defense when they are dying because of food shortage? Ok, one would say they would get guns by charity of wealthier. But the opposite site have planes/rockets/copters/etc. what now? Should they get armed to that degree or they’d be left in mercy of the attackers? The society would just turn around in ACism, well siht happens all the time? It’s not difficult to imagine there would be very increasing need for weapons among groups, which is not something I’d like to see. Because of money spent on arming, there would be less money available for spending in education, health, social programs, etc. Also, everything is leading to much more violent world than it is today.

[/ QUOTE ]

So as an example of how horrible AC would be, you pick a scenario where a state is involved in violence against innocents. Further, you pick a scenario with a distinct LACK of capital. <font color="red">So what would (should) happen in Darfur under ACism? Who cares, it's their problem? Or would it be; ok, our military will destroy your enemies, but you will have to pay for it by giving us your land and work for us next 30 years (= become our slaves)?</font>

[ QUOTE ]
3. Property of land. ACism idea would sound acceptable when you have unlimited resources/land. What would happen when all land is sold out? What would be with people without land? There are homeless people now, but in ACism i'm sure noone would allow them to stay on the property unless seeing something useful. Where would they go? Would they become slaves? Same with no minimum payment, so i imagine people would be working basicly for a piece of bread in many places. Workers exploitation would be even worse than during the first industrial revolution (I could be convinced otherwise).

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't this in the FAQ? It should be.<font color="red">I couldn't find it: would workers exploitation be at the similar degree or even worse than during the first or second industrial revolution? </font>

[ QUOTE ]
4. Special resources. Example on mine of diamonds/oil well. In ACism the company should be able to protect itself/its property or the others would come to seize it. I’d say this is leading to barbarism.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is this any different under a state? You still have to protect valuable resources from criminals (and OTHER STATES!). <font color="red">Dependable how much democratic (human / avoiding double standards) state is - it is usually protecting well those companies / individuals / groups. I can easily see large societies evaporating in ACism, if something valuable would be found around. </font>

[ QUOTE ]
5. protecting other species: people would be run by profit. I can imagine fishery - ten thousands companies catching as much as they can. I am quite sure it's utopian to think most of them would act in a way of preserving endangered species or more than needed for preserving the number of animals.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just about every "endangered" species happens to be an animal which governments forbid people from owning. Coincidence?<font color="red">Causes and consequences. For most animals you're talking about consequences - you should find reasons. Whales/pandas/koalas/tigers/gorillas are not endangered because government forbid people from owning, it's because people are killing them.</font>

Why do you think cows and pigs have not become extinct?
<font color="red">There's a good reason i guess. So, you're saying who cares if thousands of species would extinct every year - the reason is they are not profitable, so who cares anyway?</font>

[ QUOTE ]
If ‘we’ have that in our mind, i'd be sure thousands of others in competition wouldn’t have those views. Same with animals on the ground. If there are 200 siberian tigers in wildlife it’s clear they’d distinct. Ain’t it better that I catch them as many and as soon as possible, than leave them to the others? Would there be any regulations/laws protecting other species (or that isn't necessary)?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're describing the tragedy of the commons. A result of state intervention.<font color="red">Same as above</font>

[ QUOTE ]
6. Environmental issue: what would stop one company polluting the environment above all limits.

[/ QUOTE ]

Property rights. You pollute my land, you're liable for damages. Governements explicitly ALLOW polluters to pollute. <font color="red">'You pollute my land, you're liable for damages' is working now isn't it? In addition we have (or should have) some regulations about polluting. You're saying first is enough, when we all see both is not nearly enough for saving environment. Not to say again how (and who would be able of course) would someone provide facts about global warming by one factory. Mission impossible.</font>

[ QUOTE ]
7. About quality of life: Maybe its true that the quality of life can’t be measured by number, but I’m quite convinced that ACism would increase social inequality. Lots of poorer and a few wealthier globally. Am i wrong here?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea. Why should we just accept your guess?<font color="red">Would you say it wouldn't increase it? </font>

[ QUOTE ]
I’d easily imagine private forces cruising around/protecting neighbourhoods, army personnel in shops/companies/everywhere. Would I feel safer? Nope. Would I feel any freedom in that? Nope. Wouldn’t certain human rights just evaporate? Would I like that? Nope. All the time I should be thinking about my protection and huge money should be invested in that? I’d say anarchy would have big implications on the quality of my life.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can "easily" imagine all of that under a state.
I can "easily" imagine none of that occuring without a state.
Your imaginary daydreams are not a compelling argument.
<font color="red">It's true, i can imagine it under state as well, but hopefully it's not happening. But i imagine it very easily under anarchy. </font>

[ QUOTE ]
Also, reading history from the beginning until nowadays it’s obvious people/groups/countries nowadays need higher instances watching over their behaviour. People like to live (or visit places) where they don’t feel endangered either by violence / suppression / where they don’t have to think too much about their security or property and where they feel free and independent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like a market opportunity for people to provide safety, and not provide the totalitarian nightmare world that you "easily" imagine. <font color="red">True. Still, i'd much rather live or visit places where those wouldn't be around. I'm maybe strange, but guys with guns around doesn't make me feel safer, but rather otherwise. </font>

[ QUOTE ]
I’d say a man need some regulations and institutions to keep humanity/tolerance/non-violence on higher level. Thanks for your thoughts.

[/ QUOTE ]

So people are bad, therefore they need other (bad) people in charge of them?
<font color="red">I'd say regulations are need unless we want more bad people around and more crime. Moreover, every time when there are leaks in any law, that law is abused. Why would i think it could be otherwise?</font>

[/ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]

Please stop replying like this. I can't read it.

Re: Why I couldn’t accept ACism
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. About security issues, private police &amp; courts: don't you believe it would very increased corruption? Do you believe private police could be equal to all. Do you think private courts would treat equally everyone? It's not perfect nowadays, but when they'd be run by profit, I can easily see it would worsen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Monopoly breeds corruption. Competition weeds corruption out. <font color="red">That's true. But at the same time lack of control/applicable laws breed corruption even more. </font> This should be quite obvious.

There's basically a free market in diplomas. Anyone can write "PhD" on a pieve of paper and sell it to another person. Yet the level of corruption in education is quite low. Sure, some people sell diplomas that have no basis in reality. And they're ignored by the market.

How much do you think a Harvard diploma would be worth if Harvard just sold them to whoever wanted one?

A diploma is really not much different than a judgement. The worth of it is highly dependent upon the reputation of the issuer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing wrong with your example. Same would work for shops/medical institutions/insurance companies. But i doubt it would work with repressive institutions. I'd always rather live in a society where basic human rights are equal for all no matter how wealthy people are (not perfect situation today, but they are at least to some degree now).

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How much afford would be put in solving crimes? As much as the victim is prepared to pay? Or who would be paying those bills? Overwhelming majority would be handicapped.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to think poor people might need some help paying for legal services. Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is?


[/ QUOTE ]
I'd always stand that under law everybody should be treated equally no matter how wealthy he is/skin color/religion beliefs/etc. You're basicly saying status should run our freedom / human rights / laws / punishments / safety issues. Not kind of system i'd like to live in.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2. About crime/wars: in ACism everyone should protect himself/his property. That sounds good in equal society with equal chances for progress. I have Darfur crisis on my mind. People live there with less than 1$ per day. How could they buy weapons for their self-defense when they are dying because of food shortage? Ok, one would say they would get guns by charity of wealthier. But the opposite site have planes/rockets/copters/etc. what now? Should they get armed to that degree or they’d be left in mercy of the attackers? The society would just turn around in ACism, well siht happens all the time? It’s not difficult to imagine there would be very increasing need for weapons among groups, which is not something I’d like to see. Because of money spent on arming, there would be less money available for spending in education, health, social programs, etc. Also, everything is leading to much more violent world than it is today.

[/ QUOTE ]

So as an example of how horrible AC would be, you pick a scenario where a state is involved in violence against innocents. Further, you pick a scenario with a distinct LACK of capital.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what would (should) happen in Darfur under ACism? Who cares, it's their problem? Or would it be; ok, our military will destroy your enemies, but you will have to pay for it by giving us your land and work for us next 30 years (= become our slaves)?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
3. Property of land. ACism idea would sound acceptable when you have unlimited resources/land. What would happen when all land is sold out? What would be with people without land? There are homeless people now, but in ACism i'm sure noone would allow them to stay on the property unless seeing something useful. Where would they go? Would they become slaves? Same with no minimum payment, so i imagine people would be working basicly for a piece of bread in many places. Workers exploitation would be even worse than during the first industrial revolution (I could be convinced otherwise).

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't this in the FAQ? It should be.

[/ QUOTE ]

I couldn't find it: would workers exploitation be at the similar degree or even worse than during the first or second industrial revolution?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
4. Special resources. Example on mine of diamonds/oil well. In ACism the company should be able to protect itself/its property or the others would come to seize it. I’d say this is leading to barbarism.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is this any different under a state? You still have to protect valuable resources from criminals (and OTHER STATES!).

[/ QUOTE ]

Dependable how much democratic (human / avoiding double standards) state is - it is usually protecting well those companies / individuals / groups. I can easily see large societies evaporating in ACism, if something valuable would be found around.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
5. protecting other species: people would be run by profit. I can imagine fishery - ten thousands companies catching as much as they can. I am quite sure it's utopian to think most of them would act in a way of preserving endangered species or more than needed for preserving the number of animals.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just about every "endangered" species happens to be an animal which governments forbid people from owning. Coincidence?

[/ QUOTE ]

Causes and consequences. For most animals you're talking about consequences - you should find reasons. Whales/pandas/koalas/tigers/gorillas are not endangered because government forbid people from owning, it's because people are killing them.

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you think cows and pigs have not become extinct?

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a good reason i guess. So, you're saying who cares if thousands of species would extinct every year - the reason is they are not profitable, so who cares anyway?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If ‘we’ have that in our mind, i'd be sure thousands of others in competition wouldn’t have those views. Same with animals on the ground. If there are 200 siberian tigers in wildlife it’s clear they’d distinct. Ain’t it better that I catch them as many and as soon as possible, than leave them to the others? Would there be any regulations/laws protecting other species (or that isn't necessary)?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're describing the tragedy of the commons. A result of state intervention.

[/ QUOTE ]
Same as above

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
6. Environmental issue: what would stop one company polluting the environment above all limits.

[/ QUOTE ]

Property rights. You pollute my land, you're liable for damages. Governements explicitly ALLOW polluters to pollute.

[/ QUOTE ]

'You pollute my land, you're liable for damages' is working now isn't it? In addition we have (or should have) some regulations about polluting. You're saying first is enough, when we all see both is not nearly enough for saving environment. Not to say again how (and who would be able of course) would someone provide facts about global warming by one factory. Mission impossible.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
7. About quality of life: Maybe its true that the quality of life can’t be measured by number, but I’m quite convinced that ACism would increase social inequality. Lots of poorer and a few wealthier globally. Am i wrong here?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea. Why should we just accept your guess?

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you say it wouldn't be increased?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I’d easily imagine private forces cruising around/protecting neighbourhoods, army personnel in shops/companies/everywhere. Would I feel safer? Nope. Would I feel any freedom in that? Nope. Wouldn’t certain human rights just evaporate? Would I like that? Nope. All the time I should be thinking about my protection and huge money should be invested in that? I’d say anarchy would have big implications on the quality of my life.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can "easily" imagine all of that under a state.
I can "easily" imagine none of that occuring without a state.
Your imaginary daydreams are not a compelling argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's true, i can imagine it under state as well, but hopefully it's not happening. But i imagine it very easily under anarchy.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, reading history from the beginning until nowadays it’s obvious people/groups/countries nowadays need higher instances watching over their behaviour. People like to live (or visit places) where they don’t feel endangered either by violence / suppression / where they don’t have to think too much about their security or property and where they feel free and independent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like a market opportunity for people to provide safety, and not provide the totalitarian nightmare world that you "easily" imagine.

[/ QUOTE ]

True. Still, i'd much rather live or visit places where those wouldn't be around. I'm maybe strange, but guys with guns around doesn't make me feel safer, but rather otherwise.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I’d say a man need some regulations and institutions to keep humanity/tolerance/non-violence on higher level. Thanks for your thoughts.

[/ QUOTE ]

So people are bad, therefore they need other (bad) people in charge of them?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say regulations are need unless we want more bad people around and more crime. Moreover, every time when there are leaks in any law, that law is abused. Why would i think it could be otherwise?

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry for posting in red color. Will avoid it next time cause it really is difficult to read. I’ve put some extreme situations although I believe it wouldn’t be that bad. There’s one thing I could never accept in my perfect system – humanity/rights/moral superiority based on the wealth/power. Thx for your answers and helping me to understand ACism more.