On Jul 7, 3:14 pm, Richard The Dreaded Libertarian
example.net>
wrote:> On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 13:14:03 -0700, MooseFET wrote:
>> On Jul 7, 12:54 pm, Richard The Dreaded Libertarian
example.net>>>> On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 18:55:47 -0700, MooseFET wrote:
>>>> Armed thugs go to the highest bidder. He would not be able to afford
>>>> the protection the police and the courts now give him. Look at any
>>>> failed state where the police have been replaced by armed gangs to see
>>>> what happens.
>
>>> You're doing nothing but projecting your paranoia on me. I have no need
>>> of armed thugs, especially your armed thugs who steal my money to pay
>>> themselves.
>
>> No, I'm pointing out the serious flaw in your thinking that you just
>> seem unable to understand. Look at any failed state where the police
>> force can no longer control the streets.
>
> Those fail because the rulers believe that to "control the streets" is a
> good thing. The streets don't need to be "controlled" in a free society.
How does what the ruler believe matter when they are powerless? There
are lots of people in lots of places who think lots of things. What
they think doesn't impact others.
>
> You seem to think that without some kind of overruling authority, that
> "everyone will run wild" or something. From where do you get this
> information? Are you a soothsayer? Are _you_ one of those who would "run
> wild" without some overruling authority, and assume that "everyone" is as
> immature and stupid as you are?
Where do you get the "everyone" part of this?
Your failure is in seeing that it only takes a small fraction of the
population having evil intent to make trouble. Take a look at the
real world and you will see this proven over and over.
