> 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 failed state where the police have been replaced by armed gangs to see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.