4 ms·

I do not agree with you. You're basically advocating for a form of anarchy in which one makes his own law based on how much money he can pay, however in a true

I do not agree with you. You're basically advocating for a form of anarchy in which one makes his own law based on how much money he can pay, however in a true anarchy money would have no place. This complicates issues greatly, because without placing a price-tag on value, then all value you create is relative and selling it is the product of opportunity. This might not be bad, but because of this, even in anarchy the majority wins. Like, if somebody is gay, what would you have them pay to a big mob of people with torches and pitchforks coming for him, a mob who thinks that gays are an abomination? They might not be using the same currency, his created value may not be worth anything to this mob. And since there is no police, who is going to protect him? Remember that he's in a minority after all. We take many things for granted, but IMHO democracy makes tolerance possible.

snitko 14y ago
The notion that in an anarchy you would have no police, courts, currency, and all other important things is a product of a lack of imagination. Simply because there is no government, doesn't mean there is no market for the things a government provides. What government had for a long time is a monopoly for many services and it is precisely the reason why it is so hard for people to imagine how a police or defense could exist without a government. (There are different types of anarchy theories, btw, anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-capitalism being on the two opposite sides of the spectrum).
- Retric 14y ago
  There is plenty of evidence of what happens without government, effective replacement of government services does not happen. Any argument based on that premise is clearly wrong.