[Trident/Delta]

Well bunkie, you are the one that started that particular reference. If you have no realistic anecdotal references to substantiate your stand, then perhaps your stand is in error?

After reading your and BlackbirdSST's posting, all I see is a camoflauged effort to play the same old libratarian saw but with a prettier wrapper. If this is so right, so pure, and so easy, why havn't the masses latched on to it and voted the "bums" out of office? Its because it isn't an answer.

Until you can eradicate the base instincts of man, those selfsame evils I listed previously, then you are stuck with the 80-20 rule. Societies cannot simply make mid-course corrections. It takes a LOT of time and energy to affect change in society. Simply declaring "anarchy rules" is NOT a solution. Give me a structured solution to move society to an anarchic base and I will stand beside you and defend it. But, don't destroy the existing system unless you have something or someway to accomodate the aftermath.

Semper Fi

[SteamshipTime]

Your points are well-taken, and the problem of guaranteeing property rights seems insoluble without raising an entity which has more guns than anybody else. Historically though, no such governing entity has ever contented itself with protecting property rights and in fact, begins actively working to destroy property rights. Further, nothing--not democratic elections, a written constitution, separation of governing powers--seems to have worked to limit government to date.

The answer to this conundrum may be a complete decentralization of security, rather than its centralization. This is merely an extension of the argument made by Second Amendment proponents.

I do think you are wrong in arguing that an anarchic system must be wrong because it hasn't been voted in. The majority of the electorate consists of net tax consumers who benefit greatly from the current social democratic system.