The Decline of Violence

[Rien]

Comments?

I think there are some mixed issues being debated as if its all the same.
They interrelate and that makes it difficult to clearly separate issues.

The question of government is imo slightly different that simply yes/no. It is a given that in a society there will be rules, and these rules will sometimes have to be enforced. I do not really think anybody has an issue with this.

The problem with government is imo a different one: a government claims the sole right to initiate violence in a given geographical area. And if they get big enough, worldwide.

I have nothing against a government that would not claim this right, that would allow competing governments on their own turf.

Cannot be done? well, we won't know until we try.

So in my condo example, we should have multiple boards of directors? What happens if the unit owners that are violating the rules happen to be on a different board of directors than the unit owner who is next to them that is being woken up at all hours of the night? How do the board of directors decide what to do? What happens if one board of directors wants to plant oak trees in front of the building and the other board wants palm trees?

I suppose at some point in time, we would just divide up the building into sections and have different boards take control and make decisions for their particular wing of the building (kind of like little kingdoms or countries). As for the common area decisions...I suppose that we would have to divide those up as well unless we could create some  group like the UN of condo boards that would then work together to make decisions.

The problem with government is imo a different one: a government claims the sole right to initiate violence in a given geographical area. And if they get big enough, worldwide.

Well, the flipside to this is anarchy. Competing governments within the same territory is the definition of anarchy. Who is to decide anything then? At this point we go back to the law of the jungle.

If the earth is a condo, then we already have competing boards. Would you say the countries on earth are in a state of anarchy?

What the feasibility of multiple boards in a given condo concerns: we have not tried that yet. I believe the boards would cooperate, that would be better/easier/cheaper for all of them. In case where there would be irreconcilable differences I could imagine the members of each board to flock to the same part of the building and each having their own way in that part of the building. But I do not believe it necessary to try and solve all potential problems before trying. Society is not a machine, and no amount of preparation could possibly foresee all cases. At some point you have to take the leap for a better world. Otherwise you could well be stuck in a local maximum forever.

[doodle]

If the earth is a condo, then we already have competing boards. Would you say the countries on earth are in a state of anarchy?

Of course! That is why we have militaries. We also have international organizations like the UN that try to establish rules of conduct between countries.

Sometimes cooperation breaks down...people don't agree...especially when they have different religions, languages, cultures, appearances, lifestyles etc. etc. Imagine a condo that housed people from totally different socioeconomic levels, lifestyles, cultures etc. Your wife might think she can walk through the hallways in shorts and a t-shirt, but your fundamentalist Arab neighbors might be totally offended by that. These things are complicated.

[Kshartle]

Rape is wrong IMO. I've said so.

I think it's wrong because human beings have individual sovereignty, and rape is a horrible invasion of that sovereignty.

Though I don't claim it to be logically provable or even 100% self evident.

PS even said, these things are all but impossible to prove.

Appealing to PS's authority on the subject or your ignorance are both false arguments. You realize that right? If I'm unable to prove to prove how fast light travels and no one else can prove it either that doesn't change how fast it travels. - That is not an argument for how fast light travels, just an argument that the difficulty of proving it doesn't invalidate it.

What does it mean that human's have individual soverignty?

[Kshartle]

PS,

Once again, this isn't a functional debate, but a moral one.  We're trying to develop a valid moral framework from which to make moral assertions, not an understanding of the likelihood that those rights are respected in the future.  This is mostly academic.

It's impossible, as l8 just said. That's why we're getting nowhere, and it's why I wish Kshartle would drop it. He can't admit that his morality is personal and not universally applicable to everyone, which is making us go in circles.

IMHO the functional discussion is much more interesting. There are persuasive arguments to be made on both sides and it avoids the hurt feelings of having your sense of morality challenged.

Morality is a code of behavior, so it is always individual. What I've said is that humans have self-ownership and free will. This conveys responsibility for themselves and their actions and thus the right to own and be responsible for the effects of their actions. This manifests itself in property that belongs to them and no one else and their bodies belong to them and no one else. Those are real rights even though they aren't tangible just like mathmatics are real even though they aren't tangible. We can see the expression of them in ever person just like we see the expression of mathmatics.

An indivdual moral code (they're all individual) that doesn't include a respect for other humans bodies or property is one that violates human rights. When you do that.....it's bad    Everyone knows it and the solution people advocate is creating an agency where the people in that agency have the special powers that they are the only ones who have the moral obligation to violate our rights. It's no wonder this organization (government) is responsible for so much of the horrors in the world. It's humans whose occupation is the violation of human rights.

Note-I promise you the concept of government wasn't concived by people saying "hey wouldn't it be great if we gave bill, tom and john the job of stealing from us and threating us with violence if we don't obey them?"

Modern government is just the evolution of the biggest cavemen who used to club everyone and get them to obey with threats. Using voting as cover is brilliant because you really sucker people into thinking it's voluntary. If it was voluntary then I choose not to volunteer. Ohhh yeah, it's not voluntary...it's forced.


The argument of whether or not theft & violence is good based on the results......this is a total loser because for some it will always look good because you can't convince them they don't benefit from it.

[moda0306]

Rape is wrong IMO. I've said so.

I think it's wrong because human beings have individual sovereignty, and rape is a horrible invasion of that sovereignty.

Though I don't claim it to be logically provable or even 100% self evident.

PS even said, these things are all but impossible to prove.

Appealing to PS's authority on the subject or your ignorance are both false arguments. You realize that right?

So deductive logic matters again... ok let me know when we go back to angry ramblings based on what 99% of people think.

You haven't been able to prove logically that we have rights, yet you insult my admitted non-use of logic in my summary of what my moral-code is.  That's rich.

What does it mean that human's have individual soverignty?

Is this rhetorical?  Isn't this what all this is about?  It's the idea that we have a valid moral claim over our own lives... we get to decide what we do with ourselves, and it is immoral for someone else to inflict their will against us.  This is all fine and good in a perfect universe where we're just nebulous entities floating through space.

But of course I've pointed out that it's severely limited by mother nature and our conundrum of all being stranded on the same rock together.  It means we MUST force each other.  This means we have to decide how, not whether, to manage that relationship with others and the natural world around us, and that, sir, is one fickle, complex b!tch.

[Kshartle]

while it may never achieve some "absolute perfect distribution of resources"

Why is this held up as a virtue? I think it comes from people who want to live in a state of perpetual childhood. Maybe their parents always treated them and their siblings the same and they liked it, or they were treated worse and they resent it. Either way, these people falsely view government as their parent, who should divvy up the cookies evenly. They don’t recognize that the kids (adults) deserve the cookies that they bake, and that they own them. They think it all belongs to the family and you need mom and dad to divvy it up.

They think Obama is their dad. It’s insane to me. I just want to say grow up. You’re not a kid anymore and neither are other adults. The mayor, Senator, city councilman, Secretary of State, etc are not your parents. They are other adults, and the more powerful ones in that organization are the biggest liars and thieves you’ll ever meet.

[Kshartle]

So deductive logic matters again... ok let me know when we go back to angry ramblings based on what 99% of people think.

Please stop projecting.

Your use of language like "angry and ramblings" are little argumentative tactics that show you can't have an honest debate.

[Rien]

If the earth is a condo, then we already have competing boards. Would you say the countries on earth are in a state of anarchy?

Of course! That is why we have militaries. We also have international organizations like the UN that try to establish rules of conduct between countries.

Then you are saying that anarchy works?
In an AC society you probably will have police and might even have military as well. There will be rules and order. The only thing absent would be a central monopoly on the initiation of force.

[Kshartle]

What does it mean that human's have individual soverignty?

Is this rhetorical?  Isn't this what all this is about?  It's the idea that we have a valid moral claim over our own lives... we get to decide what we do with ourselves, and it is immoral for someone else to inflict their will against us.  This is all fine and good in a perfect universe where we're just nebulous entities floating through space.

But of course I've pointed out that it's severely limited by mother nature and our conundrum of all being stranded on the same rock together.  It means we MUST force each other.  This means we have to decide how, not whether, to manage that relationship with others and the natural world around us, and that, sir, is one fickle, complex b!tch.

Ok....it's all fine and good and in a perfect universe but not in this one. Why is it not good in this one?

Using violence against another human is a choice. It doesn't matter that we live on the same rock. You keep repeating this like it's relavent. It's not. It doesn't change the fact that people choose to use violence against another acheive thier goals. Saying that we must choose to violate the individual soverignty of others to manage our relationship with them is the problem. It is fundamentaly no different from what you recognize as a problem (people choosing to violate the rights of others).

Constantly repeating that it's complex and a b1tch is another false agrument. It's called "appeal to complexity". Just because you don't understand the concept you conclude no one does, so your opinions are as good as any.

"I don't know for certain what created the universe and neither do you so I'm going to say it was a leprechaun and you can't prove me wrong with your big bang theory"

[Pointedstick]

If the earth is a condo, then we already have competing boards. Would you say the countries on earth are in a state of anarchy?

Of course! That is why we have militaries. We also have international organizations like the UN that try to establish rules of conduct between countries.

Then you are saying that anarchy works?

That's certainly what it sounds like to me. Anarchy of nations works because each one is willing and able to defend itself, right? And despite the fact that some aren't very strong and get stomped on, right?

This is beginning to sound an awful lot like a hypothetical private society which would basically consist of an anarchy not of nations, but of corporations, churches, condo associations, hospitals, and universities.

Unless, doodle, you are saying that anarchy of nations is a failure and suggesting that we really need one very large government to rule the entire whole world with no political competition whatsoever. Or maybe you are just a spotted owl.

[Kshartle]

Should everybody at all times adhere to the same moral standards?

If the answer to that question is yes, then it follows that the moral standard should allow everybody to behave morally correct at all times. Then it becomes possible to logically derive a set of consistent moral guidelines.

If however the answer is no, then we are up in sh*t creek as everybody should be allowed to do as he pleases.

The answer is no, but your leap everyone being able to do as he pleases is wrong. Just because no one should murder anyone else doesn't mean you have to don't have the right to not donate to a charity or have multiple sex partners.

Accepting that violating other peoples rights is immoral doesn't mean we need to agree on everything and saying that we don't need to agree on everything therefore murder is ok....that's a false choice.

[Kshartle]

while it may never achieve some "absolute perfect distribution of resources"

Why is this held up as a virtue? I think it comes from people who want to live in a state of perpetual childhood. Maybe their parents always treated them and their siblings the same and they liked it, or they were treated worse and they resent it. Either way, these people falsely view government as their parent, who should divvy up the cookies evenly. They don’t recognize that the kids (adults) deserve the cookies that they bake, and that they own them. They think it all belongs to the family and you need mom and dad to divvy it up.

They think Obama is their dad. It’s insane to me. I just want to say grow up. You’re not a kid anymore and neither are other adults. The mayor, Senator, city councilman, Secretary of State, etc are not your parents. They are other adults, and the more powerful ones in that organization are the biggest liars and thieves you’ll ever meet.

because "we all live together on this one rock"... if you start with the premise that anything i have automatically deprives everybody else from having it.. the only conclusion you can come to is, we all must share, and the only way to share is a bag daddy, big mommy government handing it out according to what is "fair"... the "absolute perfect distribution of resources" is impossible. It is impossible with every system based on the unworkable premise, and its is impossible with a "property based" system ....but the property based system in the end comes far closer to being fair, and has the possibility of eventually being non violent when humans get their act together, a big daddy government system can never be fair or non violent...

Agreed. It is a false premise that such people start with because it denys that people create. What people create they own. We are not just "sharing" resources...we are creating them. When someone creates a car out of previously useless stuff they deserve the reward of their creation. The fact that it's useful and vaulable to someone else and they want to trade for it shows we are all better off for the creation. The seller of the car deserves to keep the profit from the creation. It encourages more creation and more value and a better world.

It's also the only morally acceptable framework because it respects human soverignty and rights rather than violate them. I know the moral argument isn't popular here but I think it's a slam dunk for arguing against violence. The wealth that comes from voluntary win-win vs. violent win-lose has been a losing argument for decades and will continue to lose.

[Kshartle]

If the earth is a condo, then we already have competing boards. Would you say the countries on earth are in a state of anarchy?

Of course! That is why we have militaries. We also have international organizations like the UN that try to establish rules of conduct between countries.

Then you are saying that anarchy works?

+1  Good catch Rien!

[doodle]

Of course! That is why we have militaries. We also have international organizations like the UN that try to establish rules of conduct between countries.

Then you are saying that anarchy works?

That's certainly what it sounds like to me. Anarchy of nations works because each one is willing and able to defend itself, right? And despite the fact that some aren't very strong and get stomped on, right?

This is beginning to sound an awful lot like a hypothetical private society which would basically consist of an anarchy not of nations, but of corporations, churches, condo associations, hospitals, and universities.

Unless, doodle, you are saying that anarchy of nations is a failure and suggesting that we really need one very large government to rule the entire whole world with no political competition whatsoever. Or maybe you are just a spotted owl.

Okay, so the solution is to have 7 billion nations? Each person is a nation unto themselves? If I run a red light and kill your grandmother then I will simply claim diplomatic immunity and say that I cant be tried under the laws of your nation?

We could go back to this state of affairs which would be what led to 25% of males dying at the hands of another human. It would be a return to the law of the jungle...plain and simple.

Ive already stated that humans like other primates are not genetically programmed to cooperate on a large scale like bees and ants. In order to unite groups of people together there must be established structures and hierarchies. If there were only a few thousand humans roaming around the earth in small familial bands you wouldn't need governments. However, we have 7 billion people and immensely powerful technology. Just as my condo board makes decisions about how to operate our territory, and my local government makes city wide decisions, and my state government makes statewide decisions...there is a national government that also makes decisions.

I cant debate like this anymore. You guys are so far outside of reality that I am having trouble even following your line of reasoning. God bless Moda for trying to talk some sense into you guys, but I simply don't have the patience for such nebulous debates. If you want to talk about improving government, I can have that discussion, but its total elimination is so utterly unrealistic that its a waste of time to even discuss.

[Kshartle]

It's also the only morally acceptable framework because it respects human soverignty and rights rather than violate them. I know the moral argument isn't popular here but I think it's a slam dunk for arguing against violence. The wealth that comes from voluntary win-win vs. violent win-lose has been a losing argument for decades and will continue to lose.

the moral argument is tough to make because those who don't agree with your version of what "A priori" morality is, will demand proof that probably doesn't exist, an argument about what comes after, the results of the framework, win-win vs. violent win-lose is the stronger case...  it is easier to make the moral argument about violence (non defensive) than it is to make it about the existence of property..

If someone demands proof that people shouldn't steal from each other or murder each other or enslave each other......do you really think it's worth time convincing them?

I might engage in that here in the forum because I'm chained to my desk and it's good to sharpen arguments but since 99% of people don't need that proof that's more fertile ground for the argument.

With 99% of people who already know intuitivly that stealing and murder and threats are wrong you just need to point out that they support that stuff when they support governement "solutions". Then they might actually say "wait a second.....no wonder the government screws everything up, I'm not going to support yet another law that's supposed to make are lives better. I'm going to support freedom because it's non-violent and doesn't violate everyone's rights (god-given or otherwise).

At least that's the hope. The libertarian message that freedom is more economical....it just can't win against the repubs and dems who promise to steal for people and order everyone to do what the voters want them to do.

[Kshartle]

Okay, so the solution is to have 7 billion nations? Each person is a nation unto themselves?

The solution is to stop thinking that violence solves problems and stop supporting it. You're stuck in that false belief that violence is a solution. It's evident in your posts. "All disputes must be settled by a third party with the power to destroy the other two"..or something like that.

People choose to use violence to get what they want. That choice is what creates the problems. It's a choice...not a law of physics. People have the free will that allows them to choose.

You don't solve the problem of violence by choosing to use violence. That's how you create more problems.

You solve it by giving up on it as a solution and explaining to others to give up on it. Some won't. That's why defending yourself exists. People defend themselves against violence, and that's fine. Everyone (except the crimminaly insane like the people who run governments) accepts defense as valid (though it appears you advocate violence that can't be defended against).

What you advocate is nothing more than such overwhelming violence that no one can resist and that we all support that. It's riddled in your posts and it's self-contradicting. It's obviously wrong because it's self-contradicting .

[doodle]

Kshartle,

I think it would be very interesting if you started a commune experiment with say 1000  diverse people on a small plot of land somewhere. Like a microcosm of the Earth. You cant just have intelligent people though. You need drug addicts, alcoholics, and other similarly flawed people in your community. I would be curious to see how things were managed without any government.

Why cant one of these rich Galt like libertarians do something like this to test these theories?

[Pointedstick]

Okay, so the solution is to have 7 billion nations? Each person is a nation unto themselves? If I run a red light and kill your grandmother then I will simply claim diplomatic immunity and say that I cant be tried under the laws of your nation?

We could go back to this state of affairs which would be what led to 25% of males dying at the hands of another human. It would be a return to the law of the jungle...plain and simple.

I don't believe you've ever addressed my argument that we never left the law of the jungle. The government just serves in the role of "most powerful alpha male who will whack anyone who disagrees with him."

Ive already stated that humans like other primates are not genetically programmed to cooperate on a large scale like bees and ants. In order to unite groups of people together there must be established structures and hierarchies. If there were only a few thousand humans roaming around the earth in small familial bands you wouldn't need governments. However, we have 7 billion people and immensely powerful technology. Just as my condo board makes decisions about how to operate our territory, and my local government makes city wide decisions, and my state government makes statewide decisions...there is a national government that also makes decisions.

Should there be a global government that makes global decisions? That seems to be where you're heading?

But regarding the argument that the complex world requires complex government, I see non-government organizations responding to the complexity of our world far better than governments in most cases.

Even your condo organization that you like so much isn't actually a government. You like its authority, and its rule-making power, and that's fine, you're entitled. But it's not a government: you're forgetting that you personally granted them this power when you signed a contract with them, and if they violated the provisions of that contract, you could object and sue them. That's the difference. If our governments worked more like condo boards, you probably wouldn't see as much complaining. Even YOU might be pissed if one day your condo association decided one day that it wasn't fair for you to not share your condo and decided to distribute keys to your condo to local homeless people. "It's not in my contract!", you complain? Who cares! They say. Because that's basically how governments behave. Would you tolerate that from your condo association. If not, why not?

I cant debate like this anymore. You guys are so far outside of reality that I am having trouble even following your line of reasoning. God bless Moda for trying to talk some sense into you guys, but I simply don't have the patience for such nebulous debates. If you want to talk about improving government, I can have that discussion, but its total elimination is so utterly unrealistic that its a waste of time to even discuss.

I bet a lot of people thought it was a waste of time to talk about powered fixed-wing flight before 1904, too.

[doodle]

Okay, so the solution is to have 7 billion nations? Each person is a nation unto themselves?

The solution is to stop thinking that violence solves problems and stop supporting it. You're stuck in that false belief that violence is a solution. It's evident in your posts. "All disputes must be settled by a third party with the power to destroy the other two"..or something like that.

People choose to use violence to get what they want. That choice is what creates the problems. It's a choice...not a law of physics. People have the free will that allows them to choose.

You don't solve the problem of violence by choosing to use violence. That's how you create more problems.

You solve it by giving up on it as a solution and explaining to others to give up on it. Some won't. That's why defending yourself exists. People defend themselves against violence, and that's fine. Everyone (except the crimminaly insane like the people who run governments) accepts defense as valid (though it appears you advocate violence that can't be defended against).

What you advocate is nothing more than such overwhelming violence that no one can resist and that we all support that. It's riddled in your posts and it's self-contradicting. It's obviously wrong because it's self-contradicting .

Geez is that all we have to do? That's so easy! We'll just tell people to get along and cooperate and not use violence and everything will work out great! Dude, you are freaking nuts!

If people were perfectly peaceful and rational creatures, then there would be no need for government.....that seems to be your argument. Am I the only one who thinks that sounds completely absurd and delusional?

[Kshartle]

I don't believe you've ever addressed my argument that we never left the law of the jungle. The government just serves in the role of "most powerful alpha male who will whack anyone who disagrees with him."

That's because your argument is rock solid and tears apart the notion that government solves the problem of the alpha male dominating everyone.

Another good qestion is, why is it undesirable to have the alpha male dominate everyone through force? If it's undersirable, then what again is the justification for a group of people having the power to force everyone to do what they order?

[Pointedstick]

Kshartle,

I think it would be very interesting if you started a commune experiment with say 1000  diverse people on a small plot of land somewhere. Like a microcosm of the Earth. You cant just have intelligent people though. You need drug addicts, alcoholics, and other similarly flawed people in your community. I would be curious to see how things were managed without any government.

Why cant one of these rich Galt like libertarians do something like this to test these theories?

Small plot of land? 1000 diverse people? Drug addicts, alcoholics, and similarly flawed people In fact, just for fun, let's make it 33,000 people, and let's make them mostly poor and uneducated. We'll make this society up almost entirely from people on the left-hand side of pretty much every bell curve you can imagine. Let's go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kowloon_walled_city

Surprise surprise: it turns out that marginal people form a marginal society. But they do form a society, and it doesn't devolve into a "warre of all againste all".

[Kshartle]

Even YOU might be pissed if one day your condo association decided one day that it wasn't fair for you to not share your condo and decided to distribute keys to your condo to local homeless people. "It's not in my contract!", you complain? Who cares! They say. Because that's basically how governments behave. Would you tolerate that from your condo association. If not, why not?

Another gem.

[doodle]

Okay, so the solution is to have 7 billion nations? Each person is a nation unto themselves? If I run a red light and kill your grandmother then I will simply claim diplomatic immunity and say that I cant be tried under the laws of your nation?

We could go back to this state of affairs which would be what led to 25% of males dying at the hands of another human. It would be a return to the law of the jungle...plain and simple.

I don't believe you've ever addressed my argument that we never left the law of the jungle. The government just serves in the role of "most powerful alpha male who will whack anyone who disagrees with him."

YES! I agree!!!! Except that this alpha male is constitutionally bound.

Ive already stated that humans like other primates are not genetically programmed to cooperate on a large scale like bees and ants. In order to unite groups of people together there must be established structures and hierarchies. If there were only a few thousand humans roaming around the earth in small familial bands you wouldn't need governments. However, we have 7 billion people and immensely powerful technology. Just as my condo board makes decisions about how to operate our territory, and my local government makes city wide decisions, and my state government makes statewide decisions...there is a national government that also makes decisions.

Should there be a global government that makes global decisions? That seems to be where you're heading?...YES! This is probably where we will be one day. If an alien race invades the Earth this is what will happen.

But regarding the argument that the complex world requires complex government, I see non-government organizations responding to the complexity of our world far better than governments in most cases....They don't have to deal with the same problems that government does. They have different roles.

Even your condo organization that you like so much isn't actually a government. You like its authority, and its rule-making power, and that's fine, you're entitled. But it's not a government: you're forgetting that you personally granted them this power when you signed a contract with them, and if they violated the provisions of that contract, you could object and sue them. That's the difference. If our governments worked more like condo boards, you probably wouldn't see as much complaining. Even YOU might be pissed if one day your condo association decided one day that it wasn't fair for you to not share your condo and decided to distribute keys to your condo to local homeless people. "It's not in my contract!", you complain? Who cares! They say. Because that's basically how governments behave. Would you tolerate that from your condo association. If not, why not?

The condo represents the earth! The main difference is that the earth is a condo that no one can leave. How can I sign a contract with that situation? I have no choice. And you can sue the government presently.

I cant debate like this anymore. You guys are so far outside of reality that I am having trouble even following your line of reasoning. God bless Moda for trying to talk some sense into you guys, but I simply don't have the patience for such nebulous debates. If you want to talk about improving government, I can have that discussion, but its total elimination is so utterly unrealistic that its a waste of time to even discuss.

I bet a lot of people thought it was a waste of time to talk about powered fixed-wing flight before 1904, too.

[Kshartle]

Geez is that all we have to do? That's so easy! We'll just tell people to get along and cooperate and not use violence and everything will work out great! Dude, you are freaking nuts!

If people were perfectly peaceful and rational creatures, then there would be no need for government.....that seems to be your argument. Am I the only one who thinks that sounds completely absurd and delusional?

so your solution to violence, to achieve a rational peaceful society is to subject them to overwhelming force at the hands of a few of the very same irrational violent people???

You think you need to force people to agree with you to make something work.

You think you solve problems with violence. You don't.

It starts with you realizing that violent solutions don't work. It's actaully the only solution to all the problems that come from violence. You're nuts if you think violence solves the problems of violence. You see that is contradictory right?

You're trying to cure brain cancer by shooting the patient in the head. Live your life without using violence or theft as a solution to your problems and don't advocate it as a solution for other people's problems. It's not that this is a better solution to the problems of human violence/theft it's the only solution.

[Rien]

If you want to talk about improving government, I can have that discussion, but its total elimination is so utterly unrealistic that its a waste of time to even discuss.

I think this might be a misunderstanding. I am not against governments per se, I am however against the initiation of force. Governments perform many useful functions that would also be necessary when they forego the initiation of force. It is (imo) the claimed right to the initiation of force that makes a government inefficient. This claimed right is used by the government to keep competitors away. I think that a true market for things that are currently run by the government would create a higher efficiency for less money.

As soon as you hand somebody the "rights" to initiate force, this becomes the sole solution to every problem he/she tries to solve.