Discussion of Anarcho-Capitalism.

[Too Few Lions]

No taxes, no minimum wage, no public services, privatised healthcare, police, judiciary and education, I've gotta confess I'm with everyone else in not liking the idea of this. The system sounds like the only people who will benefit from it would be the rich, and that would only lead to more social division.

And it would if it weren't voluntary. The people who would move to an an-cap society would have similar principles.

But i'm suspecting that a lot of wealthy people and corporations would like to move to the sort of society you're suggesting so they can avoid paying taxes and pay their workers as little as possible.

I really don't see how it can be argued that no minimum wage is better for unskilled workers, I think it's only better for rich employers who can employ 10 workers at $1 an hour instead of one worker at $10 an hour. I also disagree with the view that taxation is unjustified and just theft. Personally, I think taxation is justified because the taxes fund the social structure that allows people and corporations to trade and make the money in the first place.

Fewer employer's higher unskilled workers because of the wage they would have to pay them. If you know nothing about the job, why should I pay you $10 so you can learn? Now as an employee, if I want to learn a new skill or change fields, why can't I negotiate my pay with the employer. He not hire me at $10, but perhaps I offer $5 an hour in order to prove myself. Hell I would even do it for free for a week to prove to him why he needs me.

My point is more that unscrupulous employers will try to pay staff as little as possible so maximizing their own profit. I live in the UK, and the minimum wage is a fairly recent thing here, and it's been a very good thing, lifting thousands of working people out of poverty. Personally, I think if a chairman or director of a company can take home a six or seven figure salary he should be able to afford to pay his workers a living salary. Otherwise we just have wage-slaves who are just about able to scrape by on a wage but never save anything or have very much disposable income to enjoy themselves. I guess I'm a utilitarian, but I think society should try to benefit as many people as possible, not just the rich. Plus, in a capitalist system, the rich can make more money without actually lifting a finger than the poor can by working 80 hour weeks just by investing their money, or can buy up all the land so poorer people permanently have to rent of them in a semi-feudal society.

If I steal a $100 from you, but $100 worth of things you don't need and give that back to you, is that justified? Why should my money be stolen and applied to many things I don't want, or would rather pay a private company to do?

You have a very different view of taxation than me. I view taxation as a way of providing the infrastructure that allows society to function and wealth to be created in the first place. Taxes are laid out in advance and everyone knows roughly what they're going to have to pay, the taxman doesn't rob you at knifepoint and walk you to a cash machine.  You may not agree with what those taxes are spent on (and neither do I in some instances), but that's down to us to change through democracy. I find it funny that you see tax as outright theft but not property or wealth. I think just as strong an argument could be made to see those as theft from society in general. Maybe things are different in the US, but here in the UK I'd argue that you only pay a hefty amount of tax if you can afford it.

I also worry that there's a slightly naive assumption that wealthy people and big corporations will play by the non-aggression rule if they have their own private police forces or even armies, or can buy the 'justice' they want in a private court. Or that they will be altruistic enough to care about society in general and not just about their profits and making more money. Much as I don't necessarily believe that my government always has the population's best interest at heart, my experience of big corporations is that they really don't give a toss, they're out to make money and little else. I think one of the major problems with the current system is the influence that wealthy people and big corporations are able to exert on governments, in an-cap it sounds like they'll have carte blanche to influence society and government.

You always have the potential for these things in any system. When a corporation used their power or army to prosecute others, the other people would be better able to defend themselves. There would be other military groups, with equal weaponry, for hire by those being attacked. As it stands now, when a government controls "all" the military might in an area, the people are helpless if the government turns their forces against them.
With my system it would be far less likely that one group would be able to oppress another without an equal and leveled retaliation from the oppressed group.  

This sounds like a recipe for civil war. I don't see how the poor are ever going to be able to defend themselves against the rich or corporations in this system. Money is power in your society. If one large corporation uses its private militia to suppress or coerce parts of a population, why should another corporation's militia get involved? But admittedly bad governments do turn their armies on their own people and rule through fear. Thankfully neither of us live in that kind of society.

A lot of the bad corporations are currently being protected by government, many of them are kept alive by government.

If they're protected by government, it's because they pay to be protected. Without a government there for them to have to worry about, I hate to think what more unscrupulous corporations would get upto.

I think my main worry would be simply that I don't think anarcho-capitalism promotes social cohesion. I don't think capitalism does at the moment, I'm permanently having to avoid being ripped off by unscrupulous companies and tradesman big and small, and without recourse to an independent government and laws, I would hate to think how bad things would get. I think capitalism does seem to promote greed and selfishness, and it doesn't hurt to have a government that can provide basic services for all on top of that. Companies and corporations are invariably driven by profit, and I would also worry about education, healthcare, arts, and scientific and medical research. If there's no profit to be made in various areas in these fields, why are private companies going to bother? Governments currently fund a lot of scientific and medical research that private companies won't touch because there's no obvious profit to be made out of the research. We also know that evangelical churches will teach creationism, Muslim schools might teach that Jews are related to pigs (as they do in Saudi Arabia), food and tobacco companies will free to alter scientific research to suit their own ends, as they have already tried to do, and culture will tend to become more populist as that's where the money is.

Having said that I'm all up for smaller government, less laws and a smaller public sector, I just wouldn't want to go as far as you. I guess I trust large corporations less than I trust governments. Maybe your an-cap society would turn out to be better than the present one we have, maybe I just don't trust human nature as much as you.

Are your an-cap views based mainly on a utilitarianist/altruistic desire for a better society for all or just for a better society for you?

[Ali]

I guess I trust large corporations less than I trust governments.

Agreed.  At least in theory, the point of the government is to serve the needs of the people.  Corporations don't even have that in theory - the point of corporations is to make money. 

I also have to say that I find the idea of anarcho-capitalism to be very offputting as a principle for creating a cohesive society.  It seems so..."Me, me, me, mine, mine, mine....I don't have to do anything for anybody else if I don't want to...."  I think that a strong sense of interconnectedness is important for building the kind of community that I want to live in.  I don't think of taxes as the government "stealing" my money, even though I am not a huge fan of everything the government uses my money for (like the war.)  I feel like that's just the price of living within a collective community, and furthermore, it is my responsibility to help provide for those in my community that are less able to provide for themselves, just as others will provide for me if I ever need that safety net.  We do give money/food/clothing to charity too (on an almost weekly basis! My son's preschool collects food, money, and clothing every Friday, and I make sure to involve him in selecting the food and clothing that we send and talking to him about why what we are doing is important) but I am deeply grateful that people don't have to rely on charity alone, that my tax money goes to ensure that even when times are lean and people aren't giving as much to charity, those who need it still have food to eat and a roof over their heads and necessary medical care.  I can't imagine living in a society where my neighbors don't care to provide a gauranteed safety net for each other.  I picture us eying each other suspiciously over the hedges.  LOL

[Too Few Lions]

great post Ali, that's exactly how I feel

[ThinkAnarchy]

Also, comparing health insurance companies to tech companies is apples to oranges in my mind. Tech companies have constant advances which drive investment and profits. Insurance is the same ol' racket that it's ever been. So no, they won't have explosive growth, but that doesn't mean that they aren't profit-driven.

I'm not saying they aren't profit drive, but that does not naturally equate to greed. Any business, that stay's in business, is profit driven.

The states that are currently blue are due to laws already in place preventing Insurance companies from "gender rating."

According to this article: http://www.ladieswholaunch.com/magazine/women-pay-more-for-health-insurance-than-men/2750#comments

Women are more likely to visit their doctors for their annual screenings and checkups and when they are feeling ill than men and are more likely to suffer from certain chronic diseases. Some other factors that force health insurance companies to charge women more than men is maternity care and increased incidence of chronic conditions among women. Some women even hold off on having children because their insurance policies do not cover maternity care.

It then goes on to give tips to women on how to get cheaper rates for women by seeing the doctor less, making sure your insured a couple years before a pregnancy, etc.

Seeing this is this is why I assumed the rates were higher for women, I'm inclined to believe the article is mostly accurate.

[ThinkAnarchy]

Uh... Why would a regular pregnancy be covered by insurance? Complications due to pregnancy, I get, and it should be separate insurane you should be able to get once pregnant, but as long as there are none..?

If an insurance did accept you once pregnant, you would have to pay more, and justifiably so. Your chance of a complication in pregnancy is now much greater than that of a women who isn't yet pregnant, and may not become pregnant. You are getting onto pre-existing conditions which isn't insurance. You can't and shouldn't be able to insure against something you already have.

Just as you can't get car insurance after an accident and expect the company to pay.

[ThinkAnarchy]

I have work I have to get done today, and going out to the bar for pint night afterwards, so I probably won't get around to responding to anyone else today.

Here is a 10 minute cartoon, explaining why I don't understand the majority idea that government is a good thing. It just doesn't seem logical to me. But I will be back later tonight or tomorrow.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EUS1m5MSt9k

[Tank]

I must say that this thread is a fine example of a well controlled discussion. On any other forum I have been on this thread would have degenerated into a flame war of the first order.

Thank you all for making moderation here pretty easy.

[ThinkAnarchy]

ThinkAnarchy, I'm not clear on who or what constitutes the government in the type of society you're describing. What entity is 1) drawing up the rules and laws that the society operates under, 2) enforcing those rules and laws, and 3) interpreting them?

For instance, take the following scenario from early in the thread.

Excerpt from quote from ThinkAnarchy from page 1 of the discussion (bolding is mine):

Private courts would be left to determine if the accused is guilty of the initiation of violence and what the judgement and/or punishment should be. However, because they are private, they should also be held liable for mistakes in their rulings, which would help ensure just rulings. If it is discovered they convicted an innocent individual, they should than be found to have violated this basic principle themselves, and pay reparations or some other punishment for their act of unwarranted aggression.

-What entity is holding the private court liable?

Competing third party courts would probably hear cases of another courts unfair ruling.

-What entity would discover that a convicted individual was innocent?

There would be private investigation's, either run thorough an extension of the protection agency, the court, or another entity.

-What entity would find that the court had violated "this basic principle"? And if it's just a principle and not codified in law, what bases is the private court using to make decisions in the first place?

All the courts would likely be able to do is award monetary gain, possibly to the extent of indentured servitude if the culprit is unable to pay.

There would be no criminal law as it is today. The courts would discover guilt or innocence, but would not be able to sentence individuals to death or incarceration as government courts can today. I wasn't thinking fully when I mentioned jails earlier. They could maybe fit in somehow, but I'm not positive how.

Individuals would likely be represented by one court, another individual by another. In the case of the disputing parties being protected by different courts, the dispute would likely be heard by a 3rd independent court while the other two provide their cases.

If a person continues to aggress upon others, they would likely be dropped from their court group and would no longer have protection. Vigilante justice would also be acceptable, so violent criminals would likely be forcefully exiled or murdered by the population.

-What entity would force the court to pay reparations?

Another court. Although it is possible some would make it contractually impossible to hold them liable. I'm confident the market and people would dislike that, and courts that could be held liable would take their place.

[ThinkAnarchy]

But i'm suspecting that a lot of wealthy people and corporations would like to move to the sort of society you're suggesting so they can avoid paying taxes and pay their workers as little as possible.

I'm not wealthy and a lot of an-caps are poor to middle class. It isn't only the rich who agree with this line of thinking. Businesses would move to this society to avoid paying taxes, but paying their workers as little as possible is not a risk. Even in the 3rd world, companies pay those employee's more than the average worker in those areas. Many corporations would not choose to move to our society because they wouldn't have the protection they currently have. They would be able to keep 100% of their profits, but they would also be held liable for damages done, which they currently aren't. Corporations and L.L.C's would not exist.

I really don't see how it can be argued that no minimum wage is better for unskilled workers, I think it's only better for rich employers who can employ 10 workers at $1 an hour instead of one worker at $10 an hour. I also disagree with the view that taxation is unjustified and just theft. Personally, I think taxation is justified because the taxes fund the social structure that allows people and corporations to trade and make the money in the first place.

Fewer employer's higher unskilled workers because of the wage they would have to pay them. If you know nothing about the job, why should I pay you $10 so you can learn? Now as an employee, if I want to learn a new skill or change fields, why can't I negotiate my pay with the employer. He not hire me at $10, but perhaps I offer $5 an hour in order to prove myself. Hell I would even do it for free for a week to prove to him why he needs me.

My point is more that unscrupulous employers will try to pay staff as little as possible so maximizing their own profit.

They may try, but the workers don't have to accept it.

I live in the UK, and the minimum wage is a fairly recent thing here, and it's been a very good thing, lifting thousands of working people out of poverty. Personally, I think if a chairman or director of a company can take home a six or seven figure salary he should be able to afford to pay his workers a living salary.

What about the small mom & pop stores that don't have the income to hire as many employee's now due to a required minimum wage. What about the poor people who still can't find a job and would be willing to work for less than minimum wage just to by food for their family? Why should these people be hurt because big business is finding people to work for less?

Otherwise we just have wage-slaves who are just about able to scrape by on a wage but never save anything or have very much disposable income to enjoy themselves.

I really hate that term, "wage-slave." Slave are required to work with the threat of force and receive no compensation and have no freedom. Employee's are not forced to work for a particular place over another, and they are free to negotiate their costs.

I guess I'm a utilitarian, but I think society should try to benefit as many people as possible, not just the rich. Plus, in a capitalist system, the rich can make more money without actually lifting a finger than the poor can by working 80 hour weeks just by investing their money, or can buy up all the land so poorer people permanently have to rent of them in a semi-feudal society.

The capitalist system does more to benefit the poor than government could ever hope to do. Capitalism provides the jobs to allow them to bring themselves out of poverty. Hell, Apple releasing an Ipad every six months is indirectly helping the poor. I could not afford to buy an ipad when they first came out, but can now get an older generation, that is still fantastic, at a much more affordable used price. None of us are living under a Capitalist system though.

As for the rental thing, it would be no more a risk than it currently is. Rentals are great for people who can't afford to purchase property. Those who can afford to purchase property typically are unhappy living in a rental.

If I steal a $100 from you, but $100 worth of things you don't need and give that back to you, is that justified? Why should my money be stolen and applied to many things I don't want, or would rather pay a private company to do?

You have a very different view of taxation than me. I view taxation as a way of providing the infrastructure that allows society to function and wealth to be created in the first place. Taxes are laid out in advance and everyone knows roughly what they're going to have to pay, the taxman doesn't rob you at knifepoint and walk you to a cash machine.

They use force in order to collect taxes. I see no difference between threatening violence of imprisonment by armed thugs as  any different than being robbed at the threat of being stabbed. The only difference is the level of violence being threatened to make me comply.

Taxes are the current way of providing infrastructure, but that does not mean it is the only way, or the best way. It has proven a very ineffective way, given the poor condition of some of America's infrastructure. Taxes also do not create wealth, it simply redistributes it around. Capitalism does create wealth on the other hand and redistributes it in a voluntary way.

You may not agree with what those taxes are spent on (and neither do I in some instances), but that's down to us to change through democracy. I find it funny that you see tax as outright theft but not property or wealth. I think just as strong an argument could be made to see those as theft from society in general. Maybe things are different in the US, but here in the UK I'd argue that you only pay a hefty amount of tax if you can afford it.

In our current system wealth is being stolen, but it wouldn't be in a truly free market. Property is protected by contract, but homesteading would likely be an acceptable means of gaining property as well.

I also worry that there's a slightly naive assumption that wealthy people and big corporations will play by the non-aggression rule if they have their own private police forces or even armies, or can buy the 'justice' they want in a private court. Or that they will be altruistic enough to care about society in general and not just about their profits and making more money. Much as I don't necessarily believe that my government always has the population's best interest at heart, my experience of big corporations is that they really don't give a toss, they're out to make money and little else. I think one of the major problems with the current system is the influence that wealthy people and big corporations are able to exert on governments, in an-cap it sounds like they'll have carte blanche to influence society and government.

You always have the potential for these things in any system. When a corporation used their power or army to prosecute others, the other people would be better able to defend themselves. There would be other military groups, with equal weaponry, for hire by those being attacked. As it stands now, when a government controls "all" the military might in an area, the people are helpless if the government turns their forces against them.
With my system it would be far less likely that one group would be able to oppress another without an equal and leveled retaliation from the oppressed group.  

I was using the term corporation like an idiot before. There would be no corporations seeing as those only exist due to the laws of the state. They would simply be businesses run by an individual or group of individuals. The need for force would only be greatly needed in the event of foreign invasion though.

This sounds like a recipe for civil war. I don't see how the poor are ever going to be able to defend themselves against the rich or corporations in this system. Money is power in your society. If one large corporation uses its private militia to suppress or coerce parts of a population, why should another corporation's militia get involved? But admittedly bad governments do turn their armies on their own people and rule through fear. Thankfully neither of us live in that kind of society.

Yes governments do turn their forces against the population sometimes, and the population is completely defenseless. You wouldn't have the problem of corporations gathering large sums of money though. We only have the 1% in the U.S. because of government. Owners of Corporations and L.L.C's are allowed to make their riches because of governmental laws that insure them against liability. The force in my society would not be owned

A lot of the bad corporations are currently being protected by government, many of them are kept alive by government.

If they're protected by government, it's because they pay to be protected. Without a government there for them to have to worry about, I hate to think what more unscrupulous corporations would get upto.

Yes, I have been dealing with this issue poorly, but there would be no corporations. I don't see how they could do worse, government has facilitated their rise to riches at the expense of everyone else.

I think my main worry would be simply that I don't think anarcho-capitalism promotes social cohesion. I don't think capitalism does at the moment, I'm permanently having to avoid being ripped off by unscrupulous companies and tradesman big and small, and without recourse to an independent government and laws, I would hate to think how bad things would get.

We don't have capitalism. Due to government, they have propped up and helped their friends instead of allowing the free market to do it's job.

To promote greed and selfishness, and it doesn't hurt to have a government that can provide basic services for all on top of that. Companies and corporations are invariably driven by profit, and I would also worry about education, healthcare, arts, and scientific and medical research. If there's no profit to be made in various areas in these fields, why are private companies going to bother? Governments currently fund a lot of scientific and medical research that private companies won't touch because there's no obvious profit to be made out of the research. We also know that evangelical churches will teach creationism, Muslim schools might teach that Jews are related to pigs (as they do in Saudi Arabia), food and tobacco companies will free to alter scientific research to suit their own ends, as they have already tried to do, and culture will tend to become more populist as that's where the money is.

Of course business men are motivated by profit, that is not a bad thing though. Without profit there would be no motivation to innovate and create. Governments create nothing.

Do you really believe most governments are doing a good job with education and healthcare? We don't need the government to provide these functions. Investors can fund expensive research, many of which could ask for funding from the population. If there is something the people want researched or developed, they can fund the project voluntarily if they see a need. I would likely donate money to scientific institutions for space exploration and medical research as others would.

Having said that I'm all up for smaller government, less laws and a smaller public sector, I just wouldn't want to go as far as you. I guess I trust large corporations less than I trust governments. Maybe your an-cap society would turn out to be better than the present one we have, maybe I just don't trust human nature as much as you.

How many of these problems that you think an an-cap society might suffer from has the government fixed? Does everyone get a good education? Have they prevented violent crime? Have they prevented a small portion of people from accumulating a large portion of wealth? Have they always kept their people safe from foreign invasion? Do they have a perfect or even just legal system? Have they not not killed other's in you're name and with you're money?

Are your an-cap views based mainly on a utilitarianist/altruistic desire for a better society for all or just for a better society for you?

They are based on how the society would function as a whole. There would likely be less poverty, more opportunity, more freedom, and greater wealth. Obviously a society that functions better for everyone benefits me, I don't support this philosophy because I think I would benefit at the expense of others though.

[DeterminedJuliet]

I don't know if you've seen this ThinkAnarchy, but this is an interesting "Tedtalks" segment on some of our assumptions about motivations and money as a reward.

http://youtu.be/u6XAPnuFjJc

If you're not interested in watching it, it pretty much argues that social science has shown that: when it comes to complex cognitive tasks, money isn't the most important motivating factor to people - and, actually, it can have an opposite effect. What would you make of that?

[DeterminedJuliet]

I must say that this thread is a fine example of a well controlled discussion. On any other forum I have been on this thread would have degenerated into a flame war of the first order.

Thank you all for making moderation here pretty easy.

We usually try to behave 
And kudos to ThinkAnarchy for presenting a minority opinion without resorting to calling us "sheeple". Instant bonus points for that.

[ThinkAnarchy]

Agreed.  At least in theory, the point of the government is to serve the needs of the people.  Corporations don't even have that in theory - the point of corporations is to make money.  

What good is it in theory? Governments have been tested and proven that theory false. Mine has neither been proven or disproven, on the other hand.

I also have to say that I find the idea of anarcho-capitalism to be very offputting as a principle for creating a cohesive society.  It seems so..."Me, me, me, mine, mine, mine....I don't have to do anything for anybody else if I don't want to...."  

No people wouldn't be required to help anybody else. People don't need to be forced to help others though... I'm just not sure why that is so difficult to see.

I think that a strong sense of interconnectedness is important for building the kind of community that I want to live in.

Do you really believe government's are better able to develop that sense over individuals freely working together? That sense would not be missing from my society, it would probably be stronger. People would rely on help from their neighbors instead of government. It would seem to promote peaceful co-existence and interconnectedness amongst you're neighbors.

I don't think of taxes as the government "stealing" my money, even though I am not a huge fan of everything the government uses my money for (like the war.)  I feel like that's just the price of living within a collective community, and furthermore, it is my responsibility to help provide for those in my community that are less able to provide for themselves, just as others will provide for me if I ever need that safety net.

That is a fundamental difference and a fair reason for never choosing to move to my type of community. I don't see how forcefully taking money from others is not considered theft when the government does it.

 We do give money/food/clothing to charity too (on an almost weekly basis! My son's preschool collects food, money, and clothing every Friday, and I make sure to involve him in selecting the food and clothing that we send and talking to him about why what we are doing is important) but I am deeply grateful that people don't have to rely on charity alone, that my tax money goes to ensure that even when times are lean and people aren't giving as much to charity, those who need it still have food to eat and a roof over their heads and necessary medical care.  I can't imagine living in a society where my neighbors don't care to provide a gauranteed safety net for each other.  I picture us eying each other suspiciously over the hedges.  LOL

There may still be safety nets, but they would develop naturally, and be voluntary. I could see a market for unemployment insurance for instance. It's up to individuals to determine if they believe the premiums justify the potential benefits.

Honestly though, how many of the problems do you have with my philosophy that governments have effectively fixed or prevented?

[DeterminedJuliet]

I also wonder why you think the government has failed so spectacularly.

Are you able to go about your business on a day-to-day basis without harassment? Do you legitimately live in fear? Besides taxes, have you had your things stolen by them? Have you been wrongly imprisoned? censored? persecuted? Besides "in theory", what are they actually doing to do you that bothers you so much?

I genuinely wonder, because you seem pretty committed to the idea that government is horrible. Maybe you have had horrible experience, I dunno.

On a related note, I recently worked on a project in which we conducted opinion surveys on the "satisfaction" the public has with their provincial police department. 90-95% of respondents (randomly selected) said they were "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with their local detachment. The majority had, also, not had any contact with their provincial police in the past year.  If government policing is so inherently bad and abusive, why don't most of us feel like it is?

[ThinkAnarchy]

I have watched the video you posted, but do you happen to know where I could find more information on the experiment. I simply want to get a better understanding of how it was conducted before forumlating a full opinion. The fact the Federal Reserve funded it, makes me skeptical. With that said, the information revealed does make sense.

I also wonder why you think the government has failed so spectacularly.

Are you able to go about your business on a day-to-day basis without harassment? Do you legitimately live in fear? Besides taxes, have you had your things stolen by them? Have you been wrongly imprisoned? censored? persecuted? Besides "in theory", what are they actually doing to do you that bothers you so much?

Aside from the theft called taxation, and keep in mind I'm relatively poor, so I'm not taxed much yet.:

I have been fined by the government for doing things I don't view as illegal.
-For example. I received a ticket for stopping past the white line the state indicates is the stopping point at stop signs. Despite explaining to the ignorant pig that the line is to far back to see on-coming traffic due to the parking lot next to the sign.

-People are wrongly convicted due to our legal system and their is no recourse. You can maybe get the conviction overturned, but you aren't going to be fully compensated for your unjustified capture and lose of work and friends.

-People are abused or murdered by our police forces, with little to no punishment for the offending cops.

-Millions of people... most likely billions, have died directly due to government through out history. We have a historical record full of examples of governments slaughtering people in droves.

-I have been fined for going three mph over the posted speed limit in a school zone, despite posing no risk of injury to the students of the school.

-I run the risk of being arrested for choosing to ingest a natural plant and have been robbed because I have had to go through some very shady people to purchase it. I would not have to deal with these douches if it were legal for me to put what I wanted in my body.

-I read stories everyday of innocent people being persecuted by unjust laws or mistakes. False information is a big problem with the police force, resulting in innocent peoples doors being busted down, their dogs shot, and their children traumatized because I drug dealer lived in the house a year earlier. Typically these families have to fight to get compensated for their busted door, much less their dead dog and terrified children.

-The government allows businesses to exist, whose owners are not liable for the actions of their business. This result's in many abuses.

-I am not allowed to consume raw milk, because the government thinks I'm not intelligent enough to determine if a risk outweighs a reward.

-I am having to pay more for gas because the government owns the reserves in Alaska, refuses to allow many American companies to drill in the Gulf Coast, despite Chinese companies already drilling oil off U.S. shores. They also choose war and sanctions with oil rich nations instead of diplomacy.

-The government creates laws that are 3,000 pages long, for the sole purpose of sneaking things through without anyone noticing and/or being able to raise to much of a fuss.
       -Thankfully the Supreme Court looks like it is about to rule Obama's law unconstitutional, at least Single Payer, but they may throw the whole law out, which I hope they do.

-They have bailed businesses out that should have failed, because, what would we stupid peasants do without Ford.

-They require children to attend school for a certain amount of years and receive a well rounded education. It is good in theory, but many individuals have no need and receive no benefit from the information they are taught. Children should be allowed to focus their education to things that interest them, even if that means some will make mistakes and decide to learn about Islam. I'm all for exposing children to different ideas and fields of education, but why should a child be forced to continue in math if they are terrible at it like me. I can add, subtract, multiply, divide, read graphs, calculate percentages, and a few other basic things. The basics are all I ever need in life. The kids who like and easily understand mathematical concepts are those who eventually become doctors, scientists, accountants, etc. I never thought I would be that as a kid, nor did I have any desire to be any of those. Why should I have been required to learn more in math when my time could have been better spent learning HTML. Yes, HTML requires some math, but if my interest were HTML coding, I would than have motivation to better my math skills to be better at coding.

-Government has failed to eliminate crime.

-Not only has government failed to eliminate it, they are responsible for it. They are responsible for murder in wars, theft in taxation, and that isn't even mentioning how their actions have simply made things worse. The drug laws have not eliminated drugs, the evidence suggest the laws actually encourage drug use. By criminalizing drugs, they make drug users go underground in order to acquire them and refuse to protect a victim if they became a victim during illegal activity. The drug laws have done nothing more than increase violence due to drugs.

-Government, at least in the U.S., has crippled the aviation industry and placed unneeded burden and harassment of the population due to an unreasonable fear of terrorism. We have the least educated entering into government jobs with the TSA, some of which who have criminal histories. They are not only allowed, but encouraged to molest children and the infirmed, because someone may plant a bomb on them. We are subjected to invasive inspections all because the government say's it's for our protection.

-Many areas are now trying to criminalize the recording of police interactions with the public. What does that say? They are worried because their abuses are being recorded more and more as cell phone cameras become more readily available. They don't want evidence proving they mistreated a citizen, or broke the law themselves. Honestly, what danger do camera's pose to police other than a means of exposing what is actually happening?

-Government has never ended poverty.

This list could go on for much longer, and if you would like links to the abuses I mention, I will be happy to find some.

I genuinely wonder, because you seem pretty committed to the idea that government is horrible. Maybe you have had horrible experience, I dunno.

I have had limited run-ins with government, but have been harassed several times in the past. Seeing government inflict things on my fellow human beings is enough to make me resent it though. Seeing the death it has caused and the violence it itself initiates is enough for me. I know I'm in the minority, but I can't understand why I am. I can't understand why others don't see the government is evil. All individuals who make up a government are not evil, but the institution as a whole is. It is also detrimental to humanities ability to live mostly in peace.

There will always be individuals who want control and power, but I fail to see how putting a group of individuals in control of that power is a good solution to preventing other's from seizing power. The justification seems to be, we need this government, because a new one would simply kill more people.

On a related note, I recently worked on a project in which we conducted opinion surveys on the "satisfaction" the public has with their provincial police department. 90-95% of respondents (randomly selected) said they were "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with their local detachment. The majority had, also, not had any contact with their provincial police in the past year.  If government policing is so inherently bad and abusive, why don't most of us feel like it is?

Because most people only see what happens to them directly. I wasn't beaten by a cop, so that black guy must have done something wrong. Most people also accept the cop was simply doing his job, when they get pulled over for doing five over the speed limit, without ever questioning the validity of that speed limit. Or those who get caught running a stoplight when there is clearly not traffic, accepting it because, "Well I broke the law." Most people think we aren't capable of deciding for ourselves if it is safe to run that stop light at 3AM, they simply accept we can't.

Not to mention, they will pull you over and fine you for going through a red, even if you are running that light because you don't want to be alone and at a dead stop in a high crime area.

[DeterminedJuliet]

Interesting points, but I still don't see the context in a lot of the things you describe. No one argues that the government hasn't been responsible for some bad things. It's the "they do MORE bad things than good". That I'm getting stuck on. I just don't see it. I could list a dozen really amazing, awesome things that police have done. A cop once gave me a lift home when I was a kid because I blew out one of my bike tires. He didn't have to. He just did, because he's nice.

But it's anecdotal. It doesn't mean that all police officers stop and help little girls, just as one video of a doche-bag cop beating someone up doesn't mean that all cops are power-hungry assholes (or do you call everyone who works for the government a "pig"?)

But thanks for elaborating.