[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
No I don't. I rely on the trivial truth that sometimes 'people can have their way at the expense of another'.

[/ QUOTE ]

Governments make this more so. We aren't comparing anarchy to utopia. We are comparing anarchy to coercive governments.

[ QUOTE ]
Or civil war. Or fascist communism or capitalism. Or theocracy. Depends on who has the most guns and people.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the status quo of all government around the world. Again, you are saying the worst is we descend into what we have now.

[ QUOTE ]
The beauty of a democracy which is seen as legitimate

[/ QUOTE ]

The majority likely sees this as legitimate but there is nothing inherently legitimate about democracy. I dont view democracy as legitimate.

[ QUOTE ]
when one side loses, they know that the loss is temporary and/or place value in the procedures for solving disputes themselves, and that there are non-violent procedural ways of trying to go ahead and attempt to gain power next time.

[/ QUOTE ]

The use of democracy is a violent procedure for one. Secondly, democracy is inherently stupid because one side keeps entirely winning over the other. The fact that more than one side gets the chance to be dictator for a while is not a good thing just because they rotate.

Nearly half the country didnt want to go to war and they were forced to fund and keep that war going. Half the country didnt want to be spied on. Are we better of letting those who want to sacrifice their liberty for security do so and those that dont not or is it preferable that we go through stages of having no government security then a new interval of extreme government security and back and forth into the future?

[ QUOTE ]
Think of the 2000 presidential election.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your still only talking about the two major groups that monopolize the system. minorities have never had a say and will likely not into the future.

[ QUOTE ]
This is the classic ACist reply to the civil warfare objection, but it is woefully inadequate, for (among other reasons) it presupposes that people are motivated solely by monetary gains. But the goals of most groups I have in mind here are not about increasing monetary gains...they are those who want to bring about theocracy, or want power and high relative status for extrinsic or intrinsic reasons, or a conception of distributive justice (or any ideology).

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh you mean like George Bush or Stalin. If they want to try fight a war for whatever purpose there is no doubt that the wars are less likely to happen when people have to bare the full cost. Do you think Iraq was more or less likely to happen under the assumption that the neocons had to fund the war on their own?

[ QUOTE ]
You are saying "But they will have less of X if they fight"...but what they want is Y or Z, and they could care less if they lose every last ounce of X trying to get Y or Z, which is what most matters to them. So your argument is a non-sequitur.


[/ QUOTE ]

Your missing the point. Governments make this much more likely. People can sacrifice things but the point is in a free market they must make sacrifices. When people thought should we goto war in iraq, no said oh this will cost me 30,000 plus etc. The decision was made costs aside. When costs are taken into account much less wars will be fought.

[ QUOTE ]

Another reason this argument is inadequate is that it presupposes that people are 'rational' in some sense; that is, not only do they seek profit, but they seek it in the manner which is truly the best way to maximize it; yet the mere fact that most businesses fail demonstrates that it is not the case. Even if it would *really be unprofitable for a firm to engage in violence, we can expect that many businesses would not realize this and would in fact try to increase profits via force.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not comparing the result to government but rather to utopia. If people are irrational this is true for a governed world as well and we are way worse off with all that power in the hands of irrational people.

[ QUOTE ]
The gov't does so for its own purposes, and if the mob groups do not further the purposes

In other words, we should see your supposed mob groups as part of, an example of, the gov'ts monopoly on force, not as a counterexample to that monopoly.


[/ QUOTE ]

I must be reading this wrong because i cant understand. Can you rephrase please?

[ QUOTE ]
No. In most cases in democracy the 51 THREATEN to throw the 49 off

[/ QUOTE ]

When the country stood over the bridge and said are we going to jump into this war in iraq, what happened to those that said i dont want lend my support?

[ QUOTE ]
in anarchy, if the issue is important enough, they WILL throw them off

[/ QUOTE ]

If the issue is important enough. The 49 can also defend themselves. In democracy the issue need not be important. Minorities are thrown off the bridge every day.