Abortion and 19th Century Science

[Lowe]

I am confident that man will keep finding better ways to solve his problems, as he constantly does.

Right, because you believe in the perfectibility of man.  I don't think we're really much better people than ever.

Do you believe your maker loved you so little, he made you broken?

[Kshartle]

argument by question? et tu kshartle 

No I'm literally asking what the police do at a crime scence.

They investigate. They collect evidence, they take pictures. Why do they do that and what would better than doing all that?

What is the best evidence possible?

again i don't know what your question is arguing  
-that self defense is better than government force? of course it is... but the good guy doesn't always win the gun fight....   
- that everything should be monitored by cameras at all times? might be a solution but it is a bit thin on privacy, or does your wanting privacy eliminate the need to go after those that killed you? 

My questions aren't part of an argument. I was trying to stimulate thought. We don't need to worry about how we're going to figure out who committed what crime....it will be simple. 50 years ago very few people had anything resembling a portable camera. Now even very poor people have phones with cameras. They keep getting better and cheaper. Google is coming out with a contact lens that can surf the net. Its only a matter of time before this stuff is made so inexpensive that almost everyone will have cameras, probably on their eyeballs. Cars have cameras, TVs have cameras, computers have cameras. They keep getting cheaper, more advanced, smaller etc.

How do rich people protect themselves? Do they...ahaha...rely on the police? The police can't protect you. They barely discourage crime at all. Look at how many murders rapes and thefts take place in America, and I'm not even talking about the crimes committed by the government.

The free market will solve these problems. Voluntary human interaction based on mutual profit will do it. No one will be able to commit a crime without the certainty of being caught. People will be free to defend themselves with smaller and better weapons. We know when people are allowed to have firearms there is less crime. We know when cameras are rolling out in the open people are less likely to commit crimes. Imagine when everyone knows or at least suspects that a person is recording them when they look at them?  It won't be the wild west as some of you think. Far from it. It will be amazing.

I'm not smart enough to envision how it will play out.

Luckily I don't have to be. I understand the fundamental principles that the initiation of force doesn't solve problems, because it's a violation of human rights, wrong behavior.

We could go on and on about how free market solutions will work much better than all the laws you can dream up. It might be fun if you understand the basic principles. Only a handful of people here do yet. The problem with trying to prove anarchism or the NAP this way is it's an argument from effects. It's a false argument.

The NAP is not correct because the results are better, it's correct because the initiation of force is a violation of rights. When you try to make the argument from effects you will always fail, because the non-understanding party will always come up with another problem...another scenario where they're convinced the state is necessary. Even if you were, by some miracle able to convince them that the slaves should be freed because we can pour dinosaur juice in giant metal machines and get cotton much easier, they will still want to know who will educate the roads. They haven't learned anything. They haven't learned that slavery is wrong or at least why it's wrong.

That's why I disagree with this approach PS. It's fine to talk about this stuff with someone like you or Tech who gets it. When you start down this path with people who still don't understand why the initiation of force against people is wrong you are giving up the moral argument. The moral argument is the only winner. The others are losers.

You can't have a fully rationale conversation about this stuff with a person who thinks either:

A - Right and wrong are based on whatever God, Allah, Yahweh, Zeus, Gozar etc. told me.
B - Right and wrong are based on whatever 1,000,001 out of 2,000,000 people vote on.
C - Right and wrong are based on whoever has the most guns.
D - Right and wrong is based on whatever I feel.
E - There is no such thing as right and wrong, it's kill or be killed.

These are beliefs that are primitive relics from thousands of years ago (switch out guns with rocks or scimitars) and the sooner we discard them the faster the world will improve.

[Kshartle]

the idea that private company's can investigate better and serve justice (not getting the wrong guy) better than government. maybe true in some future world, but practical application opens a whole mess of issues and conflicts that need to be resolved, i think pointedstick is trying to work through something like this... i bet he would agree its not as easy as it sounds..
 

Luckily we don't have to rely exclusively on PS. He might be up to the task but I suspect he would appreciate some help. The key to the solution is to figure out how to profit from it. When you make a profit that's the way the rest of humanity expresses to you that you're doing something valuable and they are benefiting from it in a voluntary exchange.

[Xan]

They barely discourage crime at all. Look at how many murders rapes and thefts take place in America, and I'm not even talking about the crimes committed by the government.

That's a pretty big logical fallacy there, isn't it?  Your conclusion seems to have come from thin air.

[Kshartle]

They barely discourage crime at all. Look at how many murders rapes and thefts take place in America, and I'm not even talking about the crimes committed by the government.

That's a pretty big logical fallacy there, isn't it?  Your conclusion seems to have come from thin air.

It's an argumentative fallacy. The fact that we have so many murders and thefts doesn't mean that many more weren't discouraged because it's illegal.

I wouldn't say thin air.....we do have an incredible amount of murders and theft....and it is illegal. I suppose it's more accurate to say that making murder and theft illegal doesn't prevent extremely high instances of it.

[Xan]

It looks like the most recent numbers are from 2010.  In the United States, you have a .0048% chance per year, or 1 in over 20,000, chance of being murdered.  And I'm sure that number drops a LOT if you're not in a street gang.

"Extremely high"?

[Kshartle]

It looks like the most recent numbers are from 2010.  In the United States, you have a .0048% chance per year, or 1 in over 20,000, chance of being murdered.  And I'm sure that number drops a LOT if you're not in a street gang.

"Extremely high"?

Xan......

Come on man.

You are lumping Topeka Kansas in with Detroit and Bismarck ND with New Orleans.

It's illegal to commit a violent crime in Scottsdale Arizona, same as Detroit Michigan. Check the difference in the rates. I think it's ten times higher in Detroit or more.

Here are my questions:

1. Do the people of Scottsdale need a law against murder to prevent them from doing it?
2. Why do the laws against murder not work very well in Detroit?
3. Based on just those two cities, is it not clear that it's factors other than a law that prevent the vast majority of murders?

So we can't prove a theory true, we can just seek to disprove it. Here's a theory for you. I theorize that if we make murder illegal we will prevent a lot of them. Ohhhh wait....look at the stats from Detroit and New Orleans. Do you think there would even be any more if they declared it legal? I mean my God......what do you think it would turn into, the body count from "Taken" every day?

[Mountaineer]

You can't have a fully rationale conversation about this stuff with a person who thinks either:

A - Right and wrong are based on whatever God, Allah, Yahweh, Zeus, Gozar etc. told me.
B - Right and wrong are based on whatever 1,000,001 out of 2,000,000 people vote on.
C - Right and wrong are based on whoever has the most guns.
D - Right and wrong is based on whatever I feel.
E - There is no such thing as right and wrong, it's kill or be killed.

These are beliefs that are primitive relics from thousands of years ago (switch out guns with rocks or scimitars) and the sooner we discard them the faster the world will improve.

I respect your opinion to believe this, but could you please clarify your observations or facts upon which you base these hypotheses.  I am trying to understand "how" you got to this (not "why" which I think I get).

Hypothesis 1: these are beliefs (A - E) that are primitive relics

Hypothesis 2: the sooner we discard them the faster the world will improve

And, I would be interested in how you propose man advances these hypotheses to theories that could be tested to prove if correct or incorrect.  (I am assuming that you believe man gains knowledge by either cognitive or experiential methods, not by revelation.  Pardon me if I assumed incorrectly.)

... Mountaineer

[Kshartle]

I respect your opinion to believe this, but could you please clarify your observations or facts upon which you base these hypotheses.  I am trying to understand "how" you got to this (not "why" which I think I get).

Hypothesis 1: these are beliefs (A - E) that are primitive relics

Hypothesis 2: the sooner we discard them the faster the world will improve

And, I would be interested in how you propose man advances these hypotheses to theories that could be tested to prove if correct or incorrect.  (I am assuming that you believe man gains knowledge by either cognitive or experiential methods, not by revelation.  Pardon me if I assumed incorrectly.)

... Mountaineer

Well Mountaineer, first off let me just say I'm sorry if the language was offensive. I really am. I was a believer, a very devout one who weathered the storm against every possible atheist argument from friends for years. I think I fended off all entire arguments quite well and know them inside and out. I feel I've explained my position on this stuff to a large degree in the thread on religion. It wasn't until I came up with my own arguments against the existence of God or at least the one described in the overall Christian belief system (I am lumping a lot of different groups in here I realize) that I set this stuff aside.

I cannot prove that there is no God and he didn't write the code for what is good or bad into the universe. I've discussed at length how we can derive the existence of good or bad as a consequence of what human beings are. No whether or not we were designed by a higher power....well again see my answers in the thread on religion. I think that position does seem more likely than considering us a cosmic accident.

As far as the meat of your question…..I’ll try to address it today. I'm not an expert in the language of hypothesis vs. theory and all the rest and will probably mess it up. I'm sure I will get plenty of "help"

[Mountaineer]

I respect your opinion to believe this, but could you please clarify your observations or facts upon which you base these hypotheses.  I am trying to understand "how" you got to this (not "why" which I think I get).

Hypothesis 1: these are beliefs (A - E) that are primitive relics

Hypothesis 2: the sooner we discard them the faster the world will improve

And, I would be interested in how you propose man advances these hypotheses to theories that could be tested to prove if correct or incorrect.  (I am assuming that you believe man gains knowledge by either cognitive or experiential methods, not by revelation.  Pardon me if I assumed incorrectly.)

... Mountaineer

Well Mountaineer, first off let me just say I'm sorry if the language was offensive. I really am. I was a believer, a very devout one who weathered the storm against every possible atheist argument from friends for years. I think I fended off all entire arguments quite well and know them inside and out. I feel I've explained my position on this stuff to a large degree in the thread on religion. It wasn't until I came up with my own arguments against the existence of God or at least the one described in the overall Christian belief system (I am lumping a lot of different groups in here I realize) that I set this stuff aside.

I cannot prove that there is no God and he didn't write the code for what is good or bad into the universe. I've discussed at length how we can derive the existence of good or bad as a consequence of what human beings are. No whether or not we were designed by a higher power....well again see my answers in the thread on religion. I think that position does seem more likely than considering us a cosmic accident.

As far as the meat of your question…..I’ll try to address it today. I'm not an expert in the language of hypothesis vs. theory and all the rest and will probably mess it up. I'm sure I will get plenty of "help"

K

This may or may not be helpful.  My intent is not to sidetrack the subject of the original post but I think somehow, the original topic, your current beliefs about primitive beliefs being relics, logic, violence being the root of all evil, and religion are related.

http://evolvingthoughts.net/2014/01/the ... ith-logic/

And, I was not offended by your post.  It takes really quite a lot to offend me as I am a "believer" in original sin and the corruptness of the human condition - nothing much that people do surprises or offends me.  I am actually surprised when people behave "nicely" and with respect to others.  Seriously.

... Mountaineer

[Kshartle]

I am actually surprised when people behave "nicely" and with respect to others.  Seriously.

... Mountaineer

Again, not to digress, but you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. I think people do what they think is best for themselves, in virtually all if not all cases. This doesn't mean there isn't virtue in it just because they do it for their own benefit. Benefit isn't mutally exclusive.

[Mountaineer]

I am actually surprised when people behave "nicely" and with respect to others.  Seriously.

... Mountaineer

Again, not to digress, but you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. I think people do what they think is best for themselves, in virtually all if not all cases. This doesn't mean there isn't virtue in it just because they do it for their own benefit. Benefit isn't mutally exclusive.

K,

I agree with you on your above statements.

And, not to digress further, perhaps you already answered this in the Religion thread, but I have a question for you:

When you were a "believer", did you attend a church that was more focused on Law (what you need to do to please God) or Gospel (what God has done for you)?  And, what began the process of your going your own way vs. staying with religion; it does seem to me that you determined somehow that being your own god was better than relying on the external God.  Again, I'm not trying to be judgmental but trying to understand the "how" of what you have come to believe, not the "why".

... Mountaineer

[Gosso]

Kshartle,

What will stop businesses from taking over for the government in the violence department?  Will these business be more ethical or fair than the government?  I doubt it, competition would eliminate anyone that doesn't provide quick and efficient results (or your money back!).  There is good money to be made in satisfying peoples anger and need for justice.  Maybe we would have a sheriff in every town or community?  Will these sheriffs all follow a type of code; how will they be paid?

Is there a way to stop a mafia type institution from forming?  Would the citizens rise up and kill or excommunicate anyone that attempted to gain any control?

It seems to me you are placing a lot of faith in the goodness and proper ethics of all people.  Who decides which person has the proper ethics?  Hitler and Gandhi would likely disagree on the best way to form a proper society.

As you can tell I obviously support some form of government that provides rules for the society/game.  These rules can eventually become oppressive, and this is where the people need to fight back through the political process or revolution (or vote with their feet).  Not everyone likes the rules but everyone knows what they are (at least the important ones). 

We are free in bondage.  Pure freedom is an illusion.

[Lowe]

Large businesses already control the state.  So your worst case scenario for how things might turn out, is how things are already.

[Gosso]

Large businesses already control the state.  So your worst case scenario for how things might turn out, is how things are already.

I agree.  But imagine if the government was completely removed...what would these businesses be capable of?  If you think all businessmen are saints then I can't help you.

Don't get me wrong though, I like both government AND free markets, I believe both can work together reasonably well.  But there needs to be a balance of power between the two.  I'm not sure exactly where the balance is, but I'm pretty sure it isn't "no government, all business".

[Lowe]

I do not assume they are saints.  That is what you are doing, because you assume it is safe to have a gov't, which they then control.  I don't think that's safe.

Laws don't restrain large businesses, because they write the laws.  Take GE for example.  That organization doesn't pay any taxes.  The rule of the mighty over the weak is the present reality, not a hypothetical situation.  Your worst possible scenario already happened.

[Xan]

Do you think there would even be any more if they declared it legal?

Yes!  I honestly don't see how you can disagree with this.  You chastise people for missing the "blindingly obvious", even when it isn't.  You certainly agree that the law affects behavior, or else you wouldn't care about getting rid of it so much.

I am baffled how you can claim that a law against murder has zero effect on the number of murders.  Of COURSE murder being illegal has a downward impact on the number of them.  Talk about "blindingly obvious".

Now, PS is right that it's really the consequences of being a murderer that are the deterrent.  At the moment, it's in the form of the law.  In his theoretical society, those consequences come from other places.  But you don't even like THAT, because it's still "force" in the end.

Back to the original topic: we made it legal for mothers to kill their own babies as long as they weren't born yet, and it has now happened FIFTY-FIVE MILLION TIMES since then.  So yes, I think the body count from "Taken" is a gross understatement.

[Jan Van]

... The solution to having fewer people living in poverty is not aborting the babies of the poor. It's increasing the wealth of the world through capitalism.

The wealth of the world has been increasing enormously. But what does that mean, "the wealth of the world"? The world doesn't get wealthier, individuals do. And lately a precious few. But in general I do agree with you. If we could have a bigger share of the people profit from capitalism than do now, yes, that would be the way.

10 startling facts about global wealth inequality

Our estimates suggest that the lower half of the global population possesses barely 1% of global wealth, while the richest 10% of adults own 86% of all wealth, and the top 1% account for 46% of the total.

[Kshartle]

I am actually surprised when people behave "nicely" and with respect to others.  Seriously.

... Mountaineer

Again, not to digress, but you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. I think people do what they think is best for themselves, in virtually all if not all cases. This doesn't mean there isn't virtue in it just because they do it for their own benefit. Benefit isn't mutally exclusive.

K,

I agree with you on your above statements.

And, not to digress further, perhaps you already answered this in the Religion thread, but I have a question for you:

When you were a "believer", did you attend a church that was more focused on Law (what you need to do to please God) or Gospel (what God has done for you)?  And, what began the process of your going your own way vs. staying with religion; it does seem to me that you determined somehow that being your own god was better than relying on the external God.  Again, I'm not trying to be judgmental but trying to understand the "how" of what you have come to believe, not the "why".

... Mountaineer

The only Church I ever attended as a completely free adult was a Baptist one. I can't count the Catholic Church after I left the Army since that's a relic of childhood.

The Babtist Church I attended and was a major part of for years (chior, singles ministry, volunteer), was word based. The Pastor explained that the theme of the entire Bible could be summed up in the word, Grace. Every book that we studied and lesson was an explanation of God's grace and the story he was writing from Genesis to Revelation.

I am not a God. I do control myself however. I have complete control of myself. I do not believe that things are right or wrong just because I say so. That type of belief would be based exclusively on faith and the argument for it is failure. It's the argument that what I think actually changes reality. It does not. Reality exists regardless of my opinion of it. Truth is independant of whether or not I am aware of it. 

[Gosso]

I do not assume they are saints.  That is what you are doing, because you assume it is safe to have a gov't, which they then control.  I don't think that's safe.

Laws don't restrain large businesses, because they write the laws.  Take GE for example.  That organization doesn't pay any taxes.  The rule of the mighty over the weak is the present reality, not a hypothetical situation.  Your worst possible scenario already happened.

I'm confused.  Are you saying that by eliminating the government that somehow these large businesses will change their behavior and begin paying taxes?  What is stopping them from doing that now?  Their hatred for the government?  Their hatred for the 99%?

Businesses already have a public image they need to maintain, so that pressure is already placed upon them.  But this is primary controlled through brainwashing advertising.

The primary role of government is to set and enforce the rules of the game.  If they aren't enforcing the rules (ie letting businesses not pay taxes) then "we the people" need to give the government a kick in the ass.  If "we the people" don't care or are too dumb then maybe democracy doesn't work...

I don't like the current system either, but I don't see how eliminating the government will help anything.

[Lowe]

@ Gosso

Gov't is only the claim to the moral right and obligation to initiate force.  It is not some other thing, or more than this.  This is all it is.

If gov't is maintained, then that right is maintained, and it will fall into the service of those who've the means and the will to claim it.  That happens to be big business now, but in other times it has been the church, feudal lords, and others.

You're right that businesses, or whoever, would use violence to cow others.  That's why there's a gov't now.  It's the best way for them to do it, while mitigating their risks, and distributing the costs onto those weaker than themselves.  Gov't is the natural, emergent outcome of the strong crushing the weak.  It is not a collective alliance by the weak, a rule setter, or a referee.  It does not protect the weak from those who might exploit them.  The weak are only led to believe that, by the strong.  The strong are actually exploiting the weak to the utmost degree possible, while mitigating risk, etc.

...

I accept that there is no right to initiate violence, for anyone anywhere.  Humankind will come around to this eventually.  Then the strong generally will not want to rule, and the few that do will be prevented through social ostracism, and through the private enforcement of property rights.

[Kshartle]

I don't like the current system either, but I don't see how eliminating the government will help anything.

If you look back at what TennPaGA wrote you'll see he nailed it on the head regarding this. The elimination of the government will be an effect of a better society and the rejection of the initiation of force as a solution to problems. It will not be the cause of it. Elimination of the government will not be the cause of a better world it will be the effect of it and the problems you think that will be caused by it will not be what you think.

Arguing that we should support, encourage, and empower certain humans to steal our property and enforce their rules on us so they can protect us from people who want to steal from us and enforce their rules on us........this line of thinking is the product of the training we recieve since birth from parents, religious leaders, government school teachers, media, etc.  It's truly bizarre and fascinating once you break out of the statrix to see it for what it is and just how irrational your thought patterns are when you're in it. It's almost trance-like with the mantras that you think are your own independant thoughts. They are not. They have been planted in your head.

Re-read the bold part again. That is the literal expression of what you are arguing when you argue for the "protection" of government. It is the conclusion only an insane person would come to independantly. 95% of humans are not insane so clearly it's the product of deliberate programming.

Read it again. Doesn't it sound bizzare?

So I'm sorry Gosso that I refuse to answer the question about how we'll be safe from businessmen if we don't have a government. It's like asking who will pick the cotton if we free the slaves or who will educate the kids or pave the roads or feed the poor or deal with the murders. I can answer all those questions and we've done it in countless threads. If you don't understand the fundamental principle that the initiation of force from one human against another is wrong you will just have another question and example of where you think the violence is a "neccessary evil". You will never learn how to think about these things.

I don't mean to offend, truly. When I say we've addressed all these things over and over I mean it. I'm tired of reapeating those useless arguments and trying to answer every question about how this will work or that will work without the government. I can't possibly know how everything will work. I don't know how the cotton will get picked. It's enough to know that slavery is wrong and the slaves should be freed. Once that principle is understood then rationale, moral people can think of ways to improve the world and profit with non-violent voluntary solutions to problems.

[Kshartle]

You're right that businesses, or whoever, would use violence to cow others.  That's why there's a gov't now.  It's the best way for them to do it, while mitigating their risks, and distributing the costs onto those weaker than themselves.  Gov't is the natural, emergent outcome of the strong crushing the weak.  It is not a collective alliance by the weak, a rule setter, or a referee.  It does not protect the weak from those who might exploit them.  The weak are only led to believe that, by the strong.  The strong are actually exploiting the weak to the utmost degree possible, while mitigating risk, etc.

...

I accept that there is no right to initiate violence, for anyone anywhere.  Humankind will come around to this eventually.  Then the strong generally will not want to rule, and the few that do will be prevented through social ostracism, and through the private enforcement of property rights.

Yes brilliantly said Lowe. As I've said countless times....Government is the effect, not the cause of the problem. The problem is the acceptance and support of the initiation of force as a solution to problems. The elimination of government will be the effect, not the cause of the rejection of the initiation of force as a solution to problems.

[Xan]

Yes brilliantly said Lowe. As I've said countless times....Government is the effect, not the cause of the problem. The problem is the acceptance and support of the initiation of force as a solution to problems. The elimination of government will be the effect, not the cause of the rejection of the initiation of force as a solution to problems.

Right there: the perfectibility of man.  And it's bogus.

But let's say it'll happen someday.  In the meantime, you think murder should be legal?

I don't like the current system either, but I don't see how eliminating the government will help anything.

If you look back at what TennPaGA wrote you'll see he nailed it on the head regarding this. The elimination of the government will be an effect of a better society and the rejection of the initiation of force as a solution to problems. It will not be the cause of it. Elimination of the government will not be the cause of a better world it will be the effect of it and the problems you think that will be caused by it will not be what you think.

as nice as the idea that "not hitting kids" will create this better society is, i don't think its a guaranteed formula for success there are plenty of statist, entitlement class people whose parents didn't use force, and plenty of kids whose parents did use force (me included) that ended up libertarian/anti government. the real first step seems to me to be free-market education, if education isn't free market, nothing else stands much chance, if we get gov out of educating kids and support vouchers, private schools and home schooling than you might actually make a dent in the programing, that teaches theft to prevent theft. the perfectibility of man (society) and the perfectibility of men (individuals) are two different things. i cant speak for Kshartles view on this, but to me i think individuals are perfectible if they want it and work toward it.. society "may" be if enough individuals took on that work but it seems unlikely to occur to any large degree within one mans lifespan.

as for the overall trend toward perfection its hard to impossible to call, we make improvements and suffer setbacks, make gains in one area and loose them in another. over the loooong view span of human history i like to think we have stepped up and made our self's better but that might just be the optimist in me talking.. (the realist would probably say "unquantifiable")

[Gosso]

@ Gosso

Gov't is only the claim to the moral right and obligation to initiate force.  It is not some other thing, or more than this.  This is all it is.

If gov't is maintained, then that right is maintained, and it will fall into the service of those who've the means and the will to claim it.  That happens to be big business now, but in other times it has been the church, feudal lords, and others.

You're right that businesses, or whoever, would use violence to cow others.  That's why there's a gov't now.  It's the best way for them to do it, while mitigating their risks, and distributing the costs onto those weaker than themselves.  Gov't is the natural, emergent outcome of the strong crushing the weak.  It is not a collective alliance by the weak, a rule setter, or a referee.  It does not protect the weak from those who might exploit them.  The weak are only led to believe that, by the strong.  The strong are actually exploiting the weak to the utmost degree possible, while mitigating risk, etc.

...

I accept that there is no right to initiate violence, for anyone anywhere.  Humankind will come around to this eventually.  Then the strong generally will not want to rule, and the few that do will be prevented through social ostracism, and through the private enforcement of property rights.

The strong will always control the weak.  It doesn't matter what form the strong is in.  Will this character flaw be removed during our life time? I doubt it.  Democracy is the best way I know of (even as flawed as it is) for the weak to fight back (or perhaps a benevolent King/Queen).

We'll just have to agree to disagree.  Thanks for the discussion. 

I don't like the current system either, but I don't see how eliminating the government will help anything.

If you look back at what TennPaGA wrote you'll see he nailed it on the head regarding this. The elimination of the government will be an effect of a better society and the rejection of the initiation of force as a solution to problems. It will not be the cause of it. Elimination of the government will not be the cause of a better world it will be the effect of it and the problems you think that will be caused by it will not be what you think.

Arguing that we should support, encourage, and empower certain humans to steal our property and enforce their rules on us so they can protect us from people who want to steal from us and enforce their rules on us........this line of thinking is the product of the training we recieve since birth from parents, religious leaders, government school teachers, media, etc.  It's truly bizarre and fascinating once you break out of the statrix to see it for what it is and just how irrational your thought patterns are when you're in it. It's almost trance-like with the mantras that you think are your own independant thoughts. They are not. They have been planted in your head.

Re-read the bold part again. That is the literal expression of what you are arguing when you argue for the "protection" of government. It is the conclusion only an insane person would come to independantly. 95% of humans are not insane so clearly it's the product of deliberate programming.

Read it again. Doesn't it sound bizzare?

So I'm sorry Gosso that I refuse to answer the question about how we'll be safe from businessmen if we don't have a government. It's like asking who will pick the cotton if we free the slaves or who will educate the kids or pave the roads or feed the poor or deal with the murders. I can answer all those questions and we've done it in countless threads. If you don't understand the fundamental principle that the initiation of force from one human against another is wrong you will just have another question and example of where you think the violence is a "neccessary evil". You will never learn how to think about these things.

I don't mean to offend, truly. When I say we've addressed all these things over and over I mean it. I'm tired of reapeating those useless arguments and trying to answer every question about how this will work or that will work without the government. I can't possibly know how everything will work. I don't know how the cotton will get picked. It's enough to know that slavery is wrong and the slaves should be freed. Once that principle is understood then rationale, moral people can think of ways to improve the world and profit with non-violent voluntary solutions to problems.

So I just gotta have faith.   

What you call violence/theft, I call justice and paying my dues to be a part of the social club (but this must be the Orwellian brainwashing).  Tomato/tomahto.

I wish you luck on your crusade.