Anarcho-capitalists, I'm calling you out.... (1 Viewer)

[Empyrean444]

wow...your an idiot
my argument was just saying that in a free market, 'nukes' would only exist to the extent they are demanded, and in such a world the level of demand would likely be smaller than it is currently.

and yeah you don't know what a 'firm' is, firms supply goods and services, no one 'demands' (let alone buys) violence/annihilation.

odd stuff.

But it may well still exist to a significant extent. Moreover, it would be unlikely to be any easier to, say, discuss or implement arms reduction.

As for the second point, while 'violence' cannot be produced bought (obviously) the means to create/manipulate it can be and as a result it has the potential to be used by individuals to a great extent in an anarchist system to further their own ends.

 

[John McCain]

Nuclear weapons would be used more often if private entities could freely acquire them. Fundamentalist cells don't give a fuck, or give primary consideration to maintaining their own health and safety. They're crazy as shit and their use of weapons sure as hell hasn't been rational, reasonable or responsible in the past.

Sure, in a global anarcho-capitalistic system, there may be less cause to commit violence, given the removal of abuses of power by the state, but where individuals did wish to commit violence, and were stupid or mad enough to disregard the consequences of retaliation, nuclear weapons are a very cost effective option.

Nuclear weapons are best left solely as the provision of states, who as public, massive entities, are subject to far more scrutiny, responsibility and accountability than private companies in an anarcho-capitalist society would be.

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

Regarding nuclear weapons and the free market: it's laughable that one could claim with a straight face that a shitload of rich free market actors wouldn't produce a very large demand for nuclear weapons. They are the ultimate bargaining chip in a way. People would buy them if their neighbours bought them, or they'd risk their own safety and political strength.

And a small, but existent level of unemployment is a very important thing for a functioning economy. Without it you get deadlock and stagnation because companies struggle to hire new workers and hence struggle to expand.

You are posting a poor performance in this thread so far, ComingUpForAir.

No states have decriminalized marijuana. WA and SA (places no one actually lives) have moved to a system of solely issuing fines for possession of small amounts, but given all possession still holds a minimum penalty, and if you don't pay this fine you will end up in court, I think it's misleading to say this is 'decriminalized'.

Decriminalisation involves removal of criminal penalties. This has been done (And in more states/territories than you mention, IIRC). Your definition is a desirable state of affairs, but it's not the technical one.

 

[chelsea girl]

Bringing up a new point: one thing I have noticed is common amongst anarcho-capitalists, and Libertarians in general, is a lack of understanding about the realities of discrimination. It seems to me that those who espouse these ideals know that in a world without government regulation, it would be unlikely that they would suffer. Self-interest is apparently vital to the progression of the world, but only when it benefits them.

I agree with a lot of the ideas of anarcho-capitalists (even if just in theory), but I cannot accept that everyone would be better off in the absence of government. Having some form of organised government (perhaps as small as possible is best, yes) is essential to a civilised society.

Look at a family unit as a microcosm of society at large: it will generally only work and produce good results with some level of order and a system of rules. No, not a tyrannical regime where only one person has any say; rather, a set of values and principles that are agreed upon and upheld with respect for individual differences.

The anarcho-capitalist seems to me like a petulant child in that unit who "wants this and wants it now and you can't stop me from having it!"

Obviously there is a tendency for governments to abuse their power, but I think the answer to that is not complete abolishment, rather a need to hark back to what the role of government is supposed to be ("a set of values and principles that are agreed upon and upheld with respect for individual differences.")

Anyway, that's just what tends to get to me the most. Perhaps it's irrelevant, I don't know.

 

[John McCain]

Zoe, you should post more NCAP.

Decriminalisation involves removal of criminal penalties. This has been done (And in more states/territories than you mention, IIRC). Your definition is a desirable state of affairs, but it's not the technical one.

Exactly, its only technical, it's neither a philosophical nor a practical victory. Lame.

You recall incorrectly. Some other states (nsw included), police are given discretion to be able to choose to issue a fixed number of 'cautions', which is bullshit because it's completely open to abuse, if he doesn't like the look of you, the police force decide they want to crack down, he can willfully disregard the caution and you'll be straight to court for a jay.

 

[ComingUpForAir]

Regarding nuclear weapons and the free market: it's laughable that one could claim with a straight face that a shitload of rich free market actors wouldn't produce a very large demand for nuclear weapons. They are the ultimate bargaining chip in a way. People would buy them if their neighbours bought them, or they'd risk their own safety and political strength.

You fail to grasp the parametres of the thought experiment....
By your logic, 'rich free market actors' like Microsoft and McDonalds would need to go and start stock piling the 'nukes', because if they didnt, 'they'd risk their own safety and political strength'.....(no idea why you used the word 'political', an anarcho-capitalist economy necessitates that firms are governed by economic caprice alone)
very bizarre reasoning, and, dare I say, the product of too many 'evil doctor holds world hostage with nuke' movies.

'ohh!' but I hear you cry, "I didnt mean corportations, I meant evil paramilitary groups"......but what makes you think the current 'terrorist' group would suddenly become rich enough to afford thermo-nuclear weapons, due to the elimation of goverments, more failed logic.
Murphyad tries to adress this point with the absurd assertion, 'goverments regulate their purchase', but fails to realize, they don't...goverments have no ability to 'regulate' others, they only regulate their own purchases..are you suggesting the U.S is granting Iran nuclear weapons though some 'regulation' process.
Basically, you guys must give reasons as to why the private demand for nuclear weapons must necessarily increase under anarcho-capitalistism. I'm am saying it would likely remain the same (because the barries currently constraining private 'villains', i.e funds/technology would remain unchanged), and thus in the absense of current goverment purchases, the amount of 'nukes' transacted would, overall, decrease.

And a small, but existent level of unemployment is a very important thing for a functioning economy. Without it you get deadlock and stagnation because companies struggle to hire new workers and hence struggle to expand.

not the same as saying Australia has the optimal level of unemployment.

 

[copkiller]

I love that SHODAN's posts were so bad, even posters who are against anarcho-capitalism refuted him.

Respect to ComingUpForAir.

I can totally understand why people have serious reservations about getting rid of the state. When the state intervenes so much in our lives, its hard to imagine how all these things could be co-ordinated without the state.

The education system (including private schools which are still under the control of government policy) also play a key role in re-enforcing the perceived need for the state. I can remember in primary school learning that we are so lucky to live in a democracy, and about all the wonderful things our government does.

In school we learn about lots different ideas, like feminism, marxism, communism, social democracy ect. Not once in my 13 years of schooling did I ever hear about libertarianism, let alone minarchism, or anarcho-capitalism. I'd be curious about other people's experiences here.....

The only reason I have ever been exposed to libertarian ideas was because of my own research on the internet. Needless to say I did not immediately become an anarcho-capitalist when I first read about the idea. At first it seemed horrifying.

Like many of you I saw the harm the government does in so many ways, and incrementally I realised more and more of what they do is powerfully destructive. After a few years I finally reached the conlcusion that we don't need the government at all.

If anarcho-capitalist where the selfish monsters SHODAN has made us out to be, we wouldn't spend our time reading and writing about alternative political systems which we think could make the world a better place. We realise anarcho-capitalism is very unlikely to become reality in our lifetimes, so if we were just selfish and greedy, we would just go out and take what we can from the world.

 

[copkiller]

Regarding nuclear weapons and the free market: it's laughable that one could claim with a straight face that a shitload of rich free market actors wouldn't produce a very large demand for nuclear weapons. They are the ultimate bargaining chip in a way. People would buy them if their neighbours bought them, or they'd risk their own safety and political strength.

Tbh, if nation states were rapidly dismantled it would be a disaster. Nuclear weapons would almost certainly fall into the hands of dangerous groups (even more dangerous than the state) as you rightly point out.

In fact, if we abruptly got rid of governments, it would lead to all sorts of horrendous results.

Like most anarcho-capitalist, I advocate a slow and peaceful transition towards anarcho-capitalism. Obviously it is much more important to do things like start seriously lowering taxes and cutting back military spending before we privatise the police and the military.

The eventual consequence of moving towards much smaller, more peaceful, non interventionist governments is that the massive stockpiles of weapons that have been created by governments will be dismantled.

After decades of government being reigned in, then the world may finally be ready for anarcho-capitalism.

With such a gradual transition, we would be safer under anarcho-capitalism. If private firms have to create nuclear weapons from scratch, the are faced with a much greater burden. It would be very difficult to get the funds for a nuclear weapons progam without the governments sweeping powers of taxation and money printing.

You also must consider the thousands of economic agents required to co-operate in a successful nuclear weapons program. Companies and individuals that regard the program as destructive (ie most people) would refuse to partipate.

Furthermore, the idea of using nuclear weapons for financial gains seems highly implausible since it costs billions to make these devices from scratch.

The problem of terrorism would also be very much be reduced, if not almost eliminated. Islamic terrorists do not attack the United States because they hate freedom, and are jealous of how rich and awesome America is. This is an absurd fantasy that the US government basically wants us to believe. They are angry that for decades the US military has been in their region, backing Israel, building bases in the countries and killing their people.

 

[chelsea girl]

I love that SHODAN's posts were so bad, even posters who are against anarcho-capitalism refuted him.

Respect to ComingUpForAir.

I can totally understand why people have serious reservations about getting rid of the state. When the state intervenes so much in our lives, its hard to imagine how all these things could be co-ordinated without the state.

The education system (including private schools which are still under the control of government policy) also play a key role in re-enforcing the perceived need for the state. I can remember in primary school learning that we are so lucky to live in a democracy, and about all the wonderful things our government does.

In school we learn about lots different ideas, like feminism, marxism, communism, social democracy ect. Not once in my 13 years of schooling did I ever hear about libertarianism, let alone minarchism, or anarcho-capitalism. I'd be curious about other people's experiences here.....

The only reason I have ever been exposed to libertarian ideas was because of my own research on the internet. Needless to say I did not immediately become an anarcho-capitalist when I first read about the idea. At first it seemed horrifying.

Like many of you I saw the harm the government does in so many ways, and incrementally I realised more and more of what they do is powerfully destructive. After a few years I finally reached the conlcusion that we don't need the government at all.

If anarcho-capitalist where the selfish monsters SHODAN has made us out to be, we wouldn't spend our time reading and writing about alternative political systems which we think could make the world a better place. We realise anarcho-capitalism is very unlikely to become reality in our lifetimes, so if we were just selfish and greedy, we would just go out and take what we can from the world.

This is another thing that does a great disservice to your cause and I notice a lot amongst libertarians et al: the implication that people who do not agree with you are somehow indoctrinated, unable to think freely for ourselves, or even unenlightened. It is highly patronising.

I suggest that if you want people to hate you less, as a group, you have to understand the reasons why they think differently (hint: it is not for lack of knowledge or independent research and thought) and perhaps accept the fact that the society you want to live in is not the best for everyone. This isn't just because people are lazy and can't be bothered to think of alternatives (granted, the majority of people are like that, but the ones who are not are not exclusively anarcho-capitalists), but because of a variety of life experiences, realities and world-views. It would do you a world of good to think outside your neat little box of absolutisms and gain some insight into the perspective of the weak and undesirable members of society.

Just a thought.

 

[murphyad]

Murphyad tries to adress this point with the absurd assertion, 'goverments regulate their purchase', but fails to realize, they don't...goverments have no ability to 'regulate' others, they only regulate their own purchases..are you suggesting the U.S is granting Iran nuclear weapons though some 'regulation' process.

Perhaps I was too literal in my discussion of this point. Governments do regulate their own purchases, but they are also inhibiting factor when it comes to the purchase of nukes by private entities. Corporations and the like are simply legislated out of posessing nukes at the present time. Though you are right, governments canot regulate the purchase of nukes by other countries per se, although the more powerful states can engage in economic sanctions etc. to alter the equation.

Basically, you guys must give reasons as to why the private demand for nuclear weapons must necessarily increase under anarcho-capitalistism. I'm am saying it would likely remain the same (because the barries currently constraining private 'villains', i.e funds/technology would remain unchanged), and thus in the absense of current goverment purchases, the amount of 'nukes' transacted would, overall, decrease.

Unfortunately your argument doesn't quite follow. How can we be sure if the 'barriers constraining private villains' would remain unchanged? With the absence of a government that stipulates taxation, surely the overall level of wealth in the hands of private entities would increase, making it more likely that some could better afford the purchase of nukes? Secondly, I am reasonably sure that deregulation will stimulate demand when it comes to the purchase of nukes by private entities. Even if the technology would initially be infeasible, that demand constitutes an unmet market need and it would be in the interests of some corporation to meet that need. Another point that seems to have been ignored thus far is that assuming the total level of nukes in the world remains the same, under the hypothetical transition to anarcho-capitalism these nukes would remain in place. Would it be more cost-effective for private enterprise to destroy these nukes or simply keep them?
Ultimately, however, the burden of proof rests on you in regards to the issues you present, disregarding your logically fallacious attempts to shift it.

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

Zoe, you should post more NCAP.

Agreed.

You recall incorrectly.

Hmm, marijuana is decriminalised in: WA, SA, ACT, NT. All the others are, as you say, dependent on the whim of the officer. Shame the least populous states are at the vanguard here.

I love that SHODAN's posts were so bad, even posters who are against anarcho-capitalism refuted him.

I suppose that's why I got so much rep and PMs supporting those posts; you libertarians and anarchists might be very vocal on this forum but it is a vocal minority. Anyway, the only person I can see disagreeing with me who isn't an anarchist or libertarian is ComingUpForAir, mainly because he has the delusion that the invisible hand of the free market would get rid of nuclear weapons. But him disagreeing with anybody who is not, well, him, is not uncommon. Lentern's right-wing twin.

As for yourself: Maybe if you stopped being such a condescending little shit for 2 seconds, people would be able to have a decent intellectual conversation with you about the state and what faculties of government should/should not exist, and should be maximised or minimised. Instead you and your ilk insist on seeing everything in black and white, and ranting on with extremist bullshit that is very reminiscent of the revolution rhetoric of a fucking Marxist. Heck, like a proud member of the god damn Socialist Alliance, you then have the gall to bitch and moan about how the common person is too indoctrinated to understand the truth about government like you do.

 

[Empyrean444]

The eventual consequence of moving towards much smaller, more peaceful, non interventionist governments is that the massive stockpiles of weapons that have been created by governments will be dismantled.

This does not logically follow. Weapons stockpiles tend to be dismantled as a result of negotiations between the different states. Why would a less interventionist govt decide 'let's disarm ourselves because we have less power'?

Furthermore, the idea of using nuclear weapons for financial gains seems highly implausible since it costs billions to make these devices from scratch.

Remember, general weapons as well as nukes are also crucial in this regard. The threat of such a disastrous weapon could be used to disastrous effect against those without such means of destruction - extorting millions from other private companies/individuals (et al) and even 'the people' in general in addition to driving out other rival businesses from the market so as to establish a monopoly by force (to name 2 possible and probable uses). Bear in mind that, because it is generally the threat of violence against the undefended that has such an effect, it is unlikely that the more devastating weapons (especially nukes) will actually ever be used. And if they were, its usage against one place once ought to be enough to deter most resistance

The problem of terrorism would also be very much be reduced, if not almost eliminated. Islamic terrorists do not attack the United States because they hate freedom, and are jealous of how rich and awesome America is. This is an absurd fantasy that the US government basically wants us to believe. They are angry that for decades the US military has been in their region, backing Israel, building bases in the countries and killing their people.

Yes, that is the root of their hatred, but the fact is such extreme and powerful moral forces tend to expand beyond their origins. At the present, there is a genuine 'hatred' of America which extends well beyond the state to the 'people', many of whom actually do not support it. These people really want a war and want destruction, and even if the US completely pulled out and even if the economy and all its struts were suddenly to magically improve instantaneously in the poverty stricken and ravaged areas of the world where such extremism emerges, then these moral forces - partly due to the fervent nature of Islamic extremism - are stil highly unlikely to die out in the individuals bound to and indoctrinated with them. Their support will die out, and so too will they in the longer term, but for the short term they would remain and be able to wreak some undesirable havoc and damage.

 

[copkiller]

This is another thing that does a great disservice to your cause and I notice a lot amongst libertarians et al: the implication that people who do not agree with you are somehow indoctrinated, unable to think freely for ourselves, or even unenlightened. It is highly patronising.

I only suggested that you were indoctrinated, not that you are unable to think freely or unenlightened.

You and S.H.O.D.A.N. need to stop trying to make this a personal thing about how anarcho-capitalists are such selfish, mean, condescending people.

I was merely pointing out the government uses propaganda to convince people that we need the state. If you disagree, perhaps you'd care to counter my points about indoctrination and explain why we learn about almost every political philosophy except libertarianism in public schools...

It would do you a world of good to think outside your neat little box of absolutisms and gain some insight into the perspective of the weak and undesirable members of society.

You are just making baseless assumptions about us as a group. Either say something of substance about why you think anarcho-capitalism is bad, rather than just attacking us as bad people or stfu.

Many of us care greatly about the weakest members of society and believe that statism and socialism actually hurts the weak and the poor greatly. For instance:

-Public housing forces poor people into concentrated areas where social problems a rife.
-Welfare keeps the poor in poverty and perpetually dependent on welfare.
-Overwhelmingly poor, uneducated minorities are the people locked in prison for non-violent offenses such as drug possession and petty theft.
-Poor people often join the army because it is the only job they can get that has decent pay, so they are sent overseas to die in the states pointless wars.
-Private charity struggles to help the poor because people feel enough money has already been taken from them through taxation and redistributed.
-The minimum wage prevents poor people who want to work from being able to get a job and instead forces them to remain on welfare.

Most importantly, the inefficiencies of government destroy wealth for everyone and ultimately slow down human progress which could lift millions out of poverty.

You might also find this article interesting:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html

It cites research that shows that conservatives gives 4 times more to charity as a percentage of their income than liberals who believe the government should take care of people.

The trouble with socialism is its easy to claim that you're compassionate and generous when your proposals are based on spending other people's money.

 

[murphyad]

Many of us care greatly about the weakest members of society and believe that statism and socialism actually hurts the weak and the poor greatly. For instance:

-Public housing forces poor people into concentrated areas where social problems are rife.

And a stateless capitalistic society would magically correct this problem?

-Welfare keeps the poor in poverty and perpetually dependent on welfare.

This doesn't follow. It seems deductive but you haven't explained why.

-Overwhelmingly poor, uneducated minorities are the people locked in prison for non-violent offenses such as drug possession and petty theft.

Again, how would this be corrected under anarcho-capitalism?

-Private charity struggles to help the poor because people feel enough money has already been taken from them through taxation and redistributed.

This is contradictory to an earlier post of yours in which you said that private charity, even under current levels, would be enough to provide people with basic food and water in an anarcho-capitalist society. Make up your mind. Plus, who is to say that the absence of taxation would necessarily increase this level of donation?

-The minimum wage prevents poor people who want to work from being able to get a job and instead forces them to remain on welfare.

This is a blatant lie. A tiny minority of the population works at the minimum wage. Any removal of these laws would result in this small subset of the population being placed on even lower wages. Minimum wage laws have absolutely no effect on the level of employment whatsoever and your assertion that they do is painfully misleading.

Most importantly, the inefficiencies of government destroy wealth for everyone and ultimately slow down human progress which could lift millions out of poverty.

Terrible single-villain argument. Here's an alternative theory for you: original sin. People will mess things up, whether by stupidity or by active malice. There is no magical class of people (e.g. government) who can be removed to produce the utopian situation you advocate. Any institution is liable to failure, inefficiency or active criminality. Put anyone in power-- whether it's communists or engineers or businessmen-- and they will abuse or mishandle it.

 

[Empyrean444]

-Poor people often join the army because it is the only job they can get that has decent pay, so they are sent overseas to die in the states pointless wars.

And, in an anarchist state of affairs, the same poor people would instead be forced to join the forces of private defence contractors to fight their wars instead.

 

[withoutaface]

Bringing up a new point: one thing I have noticed is common amongst anarcho-capitalists, and Libertarians in general, is a lack of understanding about the realities of discrimination. It seems to me that those who espouse these ideals know that in a world without government regulation, it would be unlikely that they would suffer. Self-interest is apparently vital to the progression of the world, but only when it benefits them.

It seems to me that you understand very little about the realities of discrimination. In my WorkCover green card induction our instructor put it perfectly:
"Now here's a list of your rights under the system, they're all valid except the last one. It says you can't be sacked for reporting a workplace indicident, but that's not at all true. The law says you can't be sacked, but if your employer wants to sack you they'll find a reason and in all but the rarest of cases you'll have no recourse whatsoever."

Anti-discrimination legislation is almost completely unenforceable, and I don't understand why you picked that, of all possible examples, as the flaw to point out.

I'll address Stephen's points later when I'm not supposed to be studying.

 

[dieburndie]

It seems to me that you understand very little about the realities of discrimination. In my WorkCover green card induction our instructor put it perfectly:
"Now here's a list of your rights under the system, they're all valid except the last one. It says you can't be sacked for reporting a workplace indicident, but that's not at all true. The law says you can't be sacked, but if your employer wants to sack you they'll find a reason and in all but the rarest of cases you'll have no recourse whatsoever."

Anti-discrimination legislation is almost completely unenforceable, and I don't understand why you picked that, of all possible examples, as the flaw to point out.

I'll address Stephen's points later when I'm not supposed to be studying.

Um, I haven't posted in this thread...

 

[chelsea girl]

I only suggested that you were indoctrinated, not that you are unable to think freely or unenlightened.

You and S.H.O.D.A.N. need to stop trying to make this a personal thing about how anarcho-capitalists are such selfish, mean, condescending people.

I was merely pointing out the government uses propaganda to convince people that we need the state. If you disagree, perhaps you'd care to counter my points about indoctrination and explain why we learn about almost every political philosophy except libertarianism in public schools...

I think it's a bit of a moot point to bring up what is taught in a school environment (not just public schools - there is a curriculum that all schools, including private, must follow) as you can apply that same issue to any discipline covered. Why aren't art students taught about EVERY artistic movement ever? Why don't we learn about every various type of verse and prose? Why doesn't geography cover every geographical location in the world? Why don't we learn about the history of every nation in our history classes?

Obviously there is a limited amount that can be taught and the people who decide the curriculum have chosen the most pertinent, applicable and overall useful topics for the average Australian student.

If you're going to cry foul because you weren't taught about Libertarian ideology, then I'll stomp my feet at having to independently find out about German surrealist cinema and shoegaze music. I think you may have to just accept that anything which deviates from the popular and the norm will likely have to be discovered outside of a school environment.

Also, I am not saying that all anarcho-capitalists are selfish, mean, condescending people. Of course I do not think that (or else I would hate my boyfriend, right?)

What I think is that, ironically enough, the way you tend to present your arguments gives the impression that you have actually been somehow indoctrinated by Libertarian propaganda. You spout a lot of, what seems to me to be, empty rhetoric. You are able to point out the flaws in the current governmental system, but think that anarcho-capitalism will somehow fix it all, despite your arguments being purely hypothetical.

You are just making baseless assumptions about us as a group. Either say something of substance about why you think anarcho-capitalism is bad, rather than just attacking us as bad people or stfu.

Many of us care greatly about the weakest members of society and believe that statism and socialism actually hurts the weak and the poor greatly. For instance:

-Public housing forces poor people into concentrated areas where social problems a rife.
-Welfare keeps the poor in poverty and perpetually dependent on welfare.
-Overwhelmingly poor, uneducated minorities are the people locked in prison for non-violent offenses such as drug possession and petty theft.
-Poor people often join the army because it is the only job they can get that has decent pay, so they are sent overseas to die in the states pointless wars.
-Private charity struggles to help the poor because people feel enough money has already been taken from them through taxation and redistributed.
-The minimum wage prevents poor people who want to work from being able to get a job and instead forces them to remain on welfare.

Most importantly, the inefficiencies of government destroy wealth for everyone and ultimately slow down human progress which could lift millions out of poverty.

You might also find this article interesting:

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Conservatives More Liberal Givers

It cites research that shows that conservatives gives 4 times more to charity as a percentage of their income than liberals who believe the government should take care of people.

The trouble with socialism is its easy to claim that you're compassionate and generous when your proposals are based on spending other people's money.

I don't doubt that you genuinely do care for the weak, poor and undesirables of society; however, I think that rather than actually completely knowing and understanding their positions and being absolutely SURE that anarcho-capitalism will benefit them, you find a way to make their plight fit in with your worldview. I do not believe their quality of life is a primary concern of yours at all.

The current welfare system in Australian undoubtedly needs to be looked at and refined, but to suggest that it has no place whatsoever is utterly narrow-minded.

The argument about private charity also fails to take into account a few disturbing factors:

1. Private charity for people with ailments such as mental illness and addiction does exist now. Nearly all of them are run my religious groups. Many use them as a way to convert people or use shaming tactics to "cure them" (Mercy Ministries, I am looking at you). I would hazard a guess and say that, in the absence of any government-provided welfare, most private charities would be set up by organisations with some vested interest in having power over the weak. Though the government is flawed, I do not believe it has this same interest.

2. I have had some close experience with a physically disabled friend who recieves government benefits as well as funding from private organisations. From what I have observed, though the private organisations provide MORE funding, they have been the ones to put restrictions upon her such as not being able to work or risk losing all funding completely (this includes things like costs for her mobility - wheelchair, hoist, etc.) The government does not place these same restrictions upon her.

I do agree with your point about the criminal justice system and the overabundance of non-violent criminals in prison. I support drug decriminalisation/legalisation. All of that certainly needs an overhaul and sentencing should certainly be looked at, etc.

 

[copkiller]

I'm glad that you're so good at judgng the sincerity of strangers on the Internet.

 

[ComingUpForAir]

How can we be sure if the 'barriers constraining private villains' would remain unchanged? With the absence of a government that stipulates taxation, surely the overall level of wealth in the hands of private entities would increase, making it more likely that some could better afford the purchase of nukes? .

..made me laugh,
By your logic, a sudden increase in a firms revenue (say 20%), will increase it's incentives to acquire multi-million dollar thermo-nuclear weapons. This is just plain wrong on so many levels, I think your confusing 'firms' with hostile death cults , and failing to realise that such groups do not produce any commodities, i.e. their revenues are not 'taxed'.
basically you've gone off on a downright psychotic tanget.

Secondly, I am reasonably sure that deregulation will stimulate demand when it comes to the purchase of nukes by private entities.

Incorrect premise, and what follows this is thus, also incorrect.
Again, I'm not sure why you keep using words like 'logic' and 'burden of proof', as none of what you say is logically self evident.