5 ms·

But it's removed.

• ashark 10y ago
  I meant to imply a progression, which I apparently failed to do. The hypothetical state of "there is no government; my private property exists to the extent that I can personally defend it" is incredibly unstable. Like, element-named-after-its-weight unstable.
• smallnamespace 10y ago
  Do you really find needing to personally defend your own property, on pain of death, better than some form of government? How are you going to guarantee that your neighbors won't be better-armed than you and rob (if you're lucky) or kill you? Why would anyone else want to join you in your utopia?
  • aseipp 10y ago
    > How are you going to guarantee that your neighbors won't be better-armed than you and rob (if you're lucky) or kill you? It's easy: like most people who believe that shit, they likely also believe they'll be on the top of the food chain at that point -- just once the big mean government goes away, that is. It's likely the only thing that's kept them from being on top, after all. There is no consideration for the possibility that they will be ruled over or taken advantage of. That's not a credible theory, you see -- because it assumes they're not at the top. Thus, this possibility you have entertained is actually an impossibility, you see! Checkmate. > Why would anyone else want to join you in your utopia? Total, all-encompassing delusion and market worship.