[fastpat]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
pat....

As much as I hate to confront you precisely, you have mentioned being "robbed at gunpoint" by government a number of times.

I've related that fact to you, and others, many times. Everyone that pays taxes directly does so at gun point. And, since few avoid indirect taxes on things they use in daily living, it's fair to say that everyone pays at gun point.

In addition, where YOU may be able to act independently, protect your property and supply everything you need,

Everyone can do so.

the VAST majority of the citizenry want a degree of "guidance" and do not wish to be in a situation where their survival depends on eternal vigilism, surrounding themselves with land mines, firearms, bazookas, and frontier justice.

Since we don't do that now, there's no reason to think we'd do that in the future. I'd point out to you the number of gated communities today as proof that government isn't protecting anyone, but you might not believe that. Further, that's the issue with democracy, it's mob rule. Those that "don't want to" live in a certain way, force me to live as they do, to help supply the things they don't want to have to figure out how to supply for themselves.

You are obviously intelligent, but apparently unable to follow your separatist philosophy to the logical conclusion which would be based upon the individual's strength, placing many at the mercy of their more powerful and amoral neighbors.

We don't use swords anymore, Bob, so weapons of the like that require professional level skills to use, that's why skilled swordsment had such famous reputations and were so rare, aren't required for self defense. Guns, despite the mythology of some, are relatively simple to use and never more so than today. I'd be foolish to think I could take advantage of my neighbors through physical strength, as would you. I'm not likely to cheat him through guile, either.

From your postings, one could assume, rightly or wrongly, that you would be loathe to help your less prepared neighbors and indeed might just take advantage of their relative weakness, leading to a situation no unlike a feudal system, that is, if you permitted these less fortunate folks to live......

You couldn't be more wrong if you studied how to accomplish it for years. Then again, you're having a hard time imagining freedom as it is, so I guess this is to be expected. Have you not read Hayek's "Road to Serfdom", Rothbard's work (any of them), or any other Austrian School of Economics work? Before you can say the above meaningfully, you'll have to study the Austrian's and then prove them wrong. Since the Keynesians have been trying to do that for 70 years or more unsuccessfully, you'll have your work cut out for you.

Those parts of America that were near anarchy such as the Soutwest of the late nineteenth century had the advantage of sparce population. Built-up areas (Cities) would quickly collapse economically and socially. This is the way history works. Proving otherwise would be to refute the thing upon which you hang your hat so strongly.....History.

Those parts of cities built on government's web of corruption would certainly collapse, and that might harm people dependant on that corruption. It's my opinion that we shouldn't concern ourselves with potential harm of parasites, when we have actual, proven harm from the way we do things now.