Wowwee, 2 weeks away from the internet, and quite the discussion has developed!
I agree that anarchy holds the best ideal for society as a whole. I believe that any other system only fights the laws of nature. However, I still have my reservations about whether or not it could be a practical solution in our lifetime. As long as other nations pose a threat, I have pretty strong doubts. Because of this I'm much more inclined to the minarchy solution. I think that early America was a big step in the right direction...this "new constitutional convention" talk sounds intriguing. I think we need a "reset" on the system, and maybe this time we could nudge the new system in a direction that was even more laissez fairre than early America. Especially the electoral system, which is fairly obsolete in the information age. Not an ideal solution, but certainly more achievable. The system laid out in Molon Labe looked like a pretty good baseline to me.
My biggest concern is the military one. It is true, even with modern weaponry an army could not conquer a nation of guerrillas...the fact that there is still ongoing conflict in Afghanistan is proof positive of this. Never mind the image of Americans that most other nations hold. Just have to remember the quote from the WWII Japanese general who decided on attacking Pearl Harbor: "it would be suicide to attack the mainland U.S., there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." We also just got in a new student here who just escaped from China, and he honestly believed that there was mandatory military service for every able man in the U.S. Every foreign perspective I've heard paints Americans as some of the most violent, well-armed, indomitable savages out there.
That being said, if there was a large,
unclaimed tract of fertile land full of vast resources and hard-working, creative people, I have a hard time believing that there wouldn't be a powerful country that would try to plant their flag here. Just look at the other recent post here that depicts how America could, imaginitively, be carved up like Thanksgiving dinner. And true, they may well come and wipe out a few cities, but could we not avoid that expense by simply maintaining a government with almost no practical power over the people, that was able to "provide for a common defense?" Say what you will about the military, but also take note of the number of battles involving foreign forces that have occurred on U.S. soil in the last 150 years. I'm more inclined to go with Teddy Roosevelt on this one, "speak softly and carry a big stick." Also remember that in America, it is patriotic to hate the government.
As for the police, pardon my non-expertise on the subject (You and the Police is near the top of my must read list), but I have made quite a few observations over the years. I have found that most of my friends who are cops fall into the "peace officer" category, while most cops I encounter during their professional duties fall more often than not tend towards the bullyish asshole category. I think that speaks for a fair number of people here who have little nice to say for the police. Granted, these observations are affected by the fact that I tend not to make friends with bullyish assholes, but it all still doesn't quite add up to claim that the majority of cops are bullies.
Instead, I surmise that the bullyish assholes are just more inclined to intervene (especially in mala prohibitum matters), whereas peace officers would simply give a nod and move along. The asshole officer will daily ruin 30 random peoples' day, while the peace officer will only act on something they perceive to be an honest offense, and may only even interact with a handful of people a day. Would be nice to get some feedback from someone who sees this sort of thing daily though, who could give a more professional opinion.
I also don't think it's fair to blast cops and service members as thieves. Not to say that the accusation is false, but it really doesn't tell the whole story. Yes, by just the right train of logic it can be deemed true, but it's really nothing more than a skillfully crafted low blow. Would you rather that the military and police force were made up solely of thugs? The military and police are a reality in today's world, that much is absolutely certain. And as long as the government is training people in the military and law enforcement crafts, and as long as they are still accepting liberty-minded people, what is there to lose? Like they say, "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em!" Also, consider this: only 3% of the American populace overtook the British Army at its peak. If 3% of those in the military were of the same persuasion, what impact could they have on the military as a whole? Who would have more influence, the minority of the "Pavlov's Dog" types, or the minority of those who fought for something they believed in their hearts? What course would the majority of the military then follow?
Also, while we're playing the numbers game, does anyone else find it sickly ironic that 6% of all people are tyrant sociopaths, while 3% will fight for liberty?
