[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
O rly?

The beauty of democracy is, I would say, its perceived goodness and practicality. It's anything but simple.

[/ QUOTE ]
The idea is simple. The people choose their leaders and clerks and make a system of law such that individual rights are protected. All the rest is detail.

The idea of "this is my property, this is your property, there are no commons" is a very long way from simple. How do you define property without law? Is it the number of guns you can hire to keep everyone off a certain area?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People who believe in government will point to lack of understanding as the reason a few oppose it.

[/ QUOTE ]
What? Again, what is this based on?

I'd say people who believe in government will point to lack of patriotism or civic responsibility as the reason some people oppose it.

[/ QUOTE ]
That doesn't say anything, it's circular. 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). But, since this is your thread and I'm rudely hijacking:

[ QUOTE ]
That's my whole point here. That since libertarianism does not seem to allow man to "have a hand" in what happens, he will be less likely to embrace it than in the absence of that bias.

[/ 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.

BTW, I would support anarchy if 90+% of people were intelligent, rational, fair minded and compassionate individuals. It's a no brainer. But if that were the case, government would work just fine too, merely as a system of convenience and charity.