[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
I truly believe that people that have grown up under stability and democracy take for granted the protections it offers and the restraint it places on the uglier and irrational side of human nature (which they never get to see).

[/ QUOTE ]

I tend to agree with this. I don't really consider myself in the AC camp, which is why I thought I could get away with this post without having to discuss the merits of AC (and why I deliberately avoided the term). But obviously I'm just a name on the internet, so once someone reads this post, I may as well be in the AC camp.

It's not to say that I don't think anarchy could maybe be *better still*, but I agree with you that many who do argue for total de-regulation seem to neglect the convenience of *not* having to protect ourselves (even if it otherwise can be argued to be more efficient).

You can say it's immoral to require other people to protect me. But that's really all you can say to persuade me if I say I like the convenience and consistency of being protected by a state, even if it means less cost efficiency according to what you value. Maybe to me, defending myself would be the worst thing imaginable and is worth millions of dollars.

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that people are less likely to seek organic solutions over structured ones. The very idea of having no backup is frightening. Whether that fear is based in actually is an important part of the debate I think. The two can't be separated out as you're trying to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is also a good point. But I agree with you because I think it doesn't matter whether that fear is legitimate. Something I believe strongly in is the "objective value of the subjective belief." Because you'll make better decisions later if you know why you believe something, rather than just if you're convinced to trust objective merit that you can't see as well. Poker is a good example of what I'm trying to say.

People will read books and take advice. "What should I do in this spot?" Should you make a button raise here? As if there's a "right" answer. It depends on your ability to make good decisions on later streets. Maybe *I* should make a certain decision in a certain spot, because based on my abilities and intuition of the situation I have a good idea what range of decisions will be good ones later. But maybe you'd be best off with a different one.

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, I would support anarchy if 90+% of people were intelligent, rational, fair minded and compassionate individuals. It's a no brainer.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not really sure what this means. Aren't these all relative terms? If everyone was just smarter then the way I see it is we'd be smart enough to interpret new burdens.