So anarchy is the answer, eh? I've always wondered... if, in an anarchy, a person were to decide to burn down every single business in competition with his own, should that person be punished? And if so, how? For one, they've broken no laws, since we wouldn't have "forcible government". Second, all that person was doing was what they wanted, or more accurately, they don't have to do anything they DON'T want, and this person didn't want to compete with others, so they eliminated the competition. And if they were to be punished, who would punish them? No one has any authority over anyone else, right? So who can do the punishing?
What say we get Bradley here and a few of his friends, and let them establish their own little anarchy on a few acres somewhere. It would be interesting to see how long it would take before they had SOME form of "forcible government", SOMEone imposing their will on others to keep things flowing.
Brad Edmonds may not be a naive little college boy, deep in the midst of the "I know all the answers" phase of adolescence, but he sure writes like it.
I agree. It always comes back to this. The arguments for anarchy, so far as I can see, are always circular.