masterlock

I can think of all kinds of problems that would arise as a result of not having government, just as I can think of all ikinds of problems that would be solved by not having government. But I will instead respond to the view that government is immoral since it is prediated on the initiation of force. While this may be true, it is a blanket statement since it ignores whether the use of said force is offensive or defensive. I doubt many people would have qualms with a police officer acting to save a life, for example. This is an example of defensive force. Cops harassing citizens in one way or another is an example of offensive force. The question in my mind is, would it be possible to construct a purely defensive government? I am talking about a government that uses force ONLY to protect rights. The "constitution" could be written in such a way that the government's sole power is that of defending the right of self-determination and private property. My belief is that most people want to do the right thing and get along. Yes, raising children the right way would solve may social problems. But I also believe that human beings, despite the best upbringings, are still capable of deceit, fraud, violence, etc. Such people need to be brought to justice. It's easy to conjecture about DROs, but the reality is without an enforcement mechanism, the DROs decision carries no force. Even after reading about this it's still not clear what the heck it is. Bu there would not be a world in which NOBODY accepts grenades and other heavy arms as legitimate. There would always be at least SOME people who would seek these things out...and use them.

Oh.

I wonder whether a "national" voluntary sales "tax", not collected by a government but instead something imposed freely by businesses and managed by some 3rd party, could be used to fund such things. It's not as if the American constitution was so perfectly designed that we can say "Well, this is conclusive evidence that minimal government is simply impossible." Remember there was a great philosophical rift between the federalists and anti-federalists. I can imagine a constituion that would be so simple in its founding priciples as to preclude he possiblity of an expanding government. Also, a kickstarter type approach could be used to fund such a government rather than coercive taxation.

Thank you everyone for the thoughtful analysis and ideas. You have given me something to think about. I have wrestled philisophically with the feasibility and practicality of pure anarchism versus something more like minarchism. It seems everytime the minarchistic view holds an advanatge. The issue of enforcement in a voluntary society is a hard one to deal with.

I was discussing the concept of voluntaryism with a friend, and he asked what would stop people from getting and using such things as grenades and rocket launchers in a voluntary society. I had to admin I didn't have an answer. Any thoughts on how a voluntary society would deal with crazy people using weapons like this?