It is all about how much risk you are willing to shoulder for yourself. I want the government hindered and the people free.
This scenario is not without risk. That is why we need an unfettered 2nd amendment.
You call it anarchy. I call it liberty.
DB, it seems to me that people who make the arguments you are making, have not thought it all the way through. You may think I haven’t either. I guess that’s the nature of this argument.
Someone could come to your home during the day and cause all sorts of havok with your family.
Witnesses could tell the police a lot of information, but then there are no police. No license plate can be presented. No description of the car can be presented. No description of the man or even his name can be provided, even if people know it.
No, the guy is free to drive off and do it again in the U.S. or some place else.
There are literally hundreds if not thousands of scenarios like this that could play out pretty much the same way.
It would take no time at all before war-lords would take over much the same way Somalia was (perhaps still is) being run.
Is that Liberty? Really? No, you give up civilized society for an uncivilized one.
Are you free to travel today? Are you free to associate with whom you chose to? Are you able to procure what you want? Are you able to chose what line of work you wish to participate in? Are you able to chose your own wife, and have relationships with family and friends in a safe environment?
With few exceptions, you are.
You look at exceptions to the rule and blow them out to make it look like we’re living in a police state. I do recognize there are some problems, and I’ve addressed ways to counter them.
We are not living in a police state. We are living in a civilized society, where the power has temporarily swung too far in the direction of law enforcement.
There are ways to remedy that. Campaign for it locally. Get a group together to oppose city councilmen and the police chief who disagrees with you.
Don’t advocate for war-lord replacements.