[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.

[Trident/Delta]

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.

Thank you for your agreement, it is a pleasure to discourse with an intelligent person. Ref above. My intimation is not that a new system be voted in, but, rather, what form of control would be deployed to keep things on a level keel until a anarchic utopia could be legitimately achieved? I, for one, favor the near elimination of the FED and transfer to power to the inedividual states, but, that plan is rife with problems. Architect seems wrapped up in semantics with little attention to mechanics. What are your views.

Semper Fi