Is No Government Possible?

[Brandon]

I've heard from several people that the world would be a lot better if we didn't have a government. My question is that would it be possible to have a country without some sort of government? Thoughts? Opinions?

[Illuminate]

uhh... I'd hve though that the country would go into chaos...
there'd be no laws would there? if there was no goverment.

[Pelios]

But if there was go government the powerful people (rich) would take over and forum their own type of government, so there will always be some type of government. But to answer your question no I don't think the world would be better without government at least no here people would go crazy and start doing whatever they want and the weak people wouldn't have anyone to turn to. I can imagine everyone with their guns on the street or with their machetes going into a store and getting whatever they want and leaving or people going to your house and taking whatever they want.

[Crazy Filmmaker]

i have to kinda disagree with you mexico, i read this a while back and it does have some good ideas and views,

plus there is this which until 2004, was a anarchist community, which shows at least on a smaller scale it could work, if everyone let it, so to work for a larger population everyone would have to take part to make it work,

so it is possible for it to happen, just everyone has to want it to happen.

[Singing to the starlight]

That sounds ridiculous. Its always been a nice idea that a group/team/community could work together with no set leader, but I've never seen it achieved. Not even in small team work efforts with school activities or sports, let alone an entire country.

[Crazy Filmmaker]

Originally Posted by Sitting on the shitter

That sounds ridiculous. Its always been a nice idea that a group/team/community could work together with no set leader, but I've never seen it achieved. Not even in small team work efforts with school activities or sports, let alone an entire country.

hate to point it out, but i did show an example if it working for around 30ish + years. so it is possible.

[TigerTank77]

Sure it's possible.

Somalia.

[losing touch.]

it's not possible if you want a stable country without violence, i don't think.

[Crazy Filmmaker]

Originally Posted by Elle.

it's not possible if you want a stable country without violence, i don't think.

well with any country and government there is always violence, so what radically makes a anarchist community any different, i did show that freetown Christiania is an anarchist community, and with little violence, sure no community is without violence but around 1000 people and just a few times that there was some major violence does show IT IS possible.

[mIssIng:nO]

Originally Posted by Ras Believe

well with any country and government there is always violence, so what radically makes a anarchist community any different, i did show that freetown Christiania is an anarchist community, and with little violence, sure no community is without violence but around 1000 people and just a few times that there was some major violence does show IT IS possible.

You can't use a town that has 1000 in it as an example, my highschool had close to 2000 people in it and they're was tons of violence into it.


You may be able to have a small city or a town work out, but a whole country would crumble instantly.

[Frosty]

Of course it's possible. Anything the government does is either undesirable or can be provided far better through the market.

[✖Ice✖]

If given the chance its possible.

[Xujhan]

Originally Posted by Frosty

Of course it's possible. Anything the government does is either undesirable or can be provided far better through the market.

Like law-enforcement.

Oh wait!

But yes, I echo the common sentiment. Anarchy, like communism, presupposes that everyone will play nice. Actually it presupposes more; at least communism has systems in place to account for a few rascally wrongdoers. An anarchist state falls apart the moment a few people decide to pick up guns.

[Brandon]

I recently learned in political science that the Articles of Confederation established a weak national government. Essentially, there wasn't much of a government. There was no national army, so the government couldn't tell the states to pay taxes. Originally, the US wanted to establish a weak national government because they didn't want to follow the footsteps of the king of England. But when they established a weak national government, states had problems with each other. When I'm asking if it's possible to NOT have a government, I'm not just asking if there would still be crimes and such, I'm asking...in general, would the US would be able to sustain a large population without a government? I'm not only asking if it was possible in the beginning, but I'm also asking in modern times. If government disappeared, what do you think would happen? Would we start back over again except somehow not having a government, or do you think that we would be like "man, not having a government is great...WHAT?! YOU WANT ME TO BUY AN APPLE FOR SEX?! Fuck this, I'm establishing a government!"

[Xujhan]

Do you mean specifically no federal government? Or no official government of any kind? The two are rather different scenarios. With only the federal government absent things would be as they were then; state governments. In the extreme case I suppose the US might simply become 50 separate countries. I think that would be at least sustainable, though I can imagine that problems would crop up.

Actual anarchy though is a very different animal. Frosty's ideal of hired guns as peacekeepers is wishful thinking at best and downright medieval in reality. Without government there is no law, not in the sense in which we think of it. Either wealth or weapons would decide who dictates the terms of everyday life; which you find more objectionable is probably a matter of taste. A simple understanding of game theory should be enough to convince anyone that anarchy is even more flawed an ideal than communism.

[ForeverAutumn*]

Originally Posted by Xujhan

In the extreme case I suppose the US might simply become 50 separate countries. I think that would be at least sustainable, though I can imagine that problems would crop up.

50 countries? Most likely more than that. Small communities would theoretically survive without government - but then, that's essentially the same as the villages established when the British first colonized the US, isn't it? Very small communities without a federal government, or centralized government.. but even then, there were some laws to abide by, to keep order.

I mean I guess, theoretically, having no government could work, but the US would have to be broken down into much, much smaller territories. There's just no way to have people in such a large area (even just metropolitan cities) live peacefully without a form of order. And yeah, I know anarchy has a solution - to more or less just send criminals and the like to certain areas to live together, but it's not realistic.

Kind of reminds me of Animal Farm.. they tried to live together in peace, without a master (government) to control their actions, but in the end someone always rises to power. It's just human nature.

[Frosty]

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Like law-enforcement.

Oh wait!

And that falls into both categories, incidently.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Anarchy, like communism, presupposes that everyone will play nice. Actually it presupposes more; at least communism has systems in place to account for a few rascally wrongdoers. An anarchist state falls apart the moment a few people decide to pick up guns.

I think before ranting about the flaws in an idealogy you should do a bit more research than listening to a hippy talk about how we should all just love each other and sing coombya and assuming this is representative of all anarchism.

Originally Posted by Brandon

Would we start back over again except somehow not having a government, or do you think that we would be like "man, not having a government is great...WHAT?! YOU WANT ME TO BUY AN APPLE FOR SEX?! Fuck this, I'm establishing a government!"

I've heard a lot of inane hypotheticals in my days debating politics, but I'm still trying to wrap my head around this one.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Actual anarchy though is a very different animal. Frosty's ideal of hired guns as peacekeepers is wishful thinking at best and downright medieval in reality.

You're right. I should instead advocate just one set of guns with a monopoly which has no incentive to actually act in our benefit. That would end my wishful thinking alright.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Either wealth or weapons would decide who dictates the terms of everyday life

Weapons already do dictate the terms of everyday life. The difference is that you're not only saying we should just bend over and take it like a good comrade, but you're making an argument for the legitimacy of a group violently ruling everyone with no opposition.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

A simple understanding of game theory should be enough to convince anyone that anarchy is even more flawed an ideal than communism.

Enlighten us with your brilliant game theory based refutation of anarchy then.

[aranel05]

I think that as long as an individual wants to be able to claim something for his or herself (private property), there has to be a government which would allow them to do so or vice versa. At this point in time I feel that it would be impossible to live in a society with no government. It has become second nature for people to own private property, and without a government to enforce laws on how to obtain such things, it would be chaos. Although humans by nature are social beings, they are also political ones.

[Brandon]

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Do you mean specifically no federal government? Or no official government of any kind? The two are rather different scenarios. With only the federal government absent things would be as they were then; state governments. In the extreme case I suppose the US might simply become 50 separate countries. I think that would be at least sustainable, though I can imagine that problems would crop up.

I mean both, really. Because the Articles of Confederation established a weak national government, every state essentially had their own government. The national government was just there to poke you and ask "where's my money" and you'll be like "we don't owe you shit." But with 50 governments, there was problems. Most of the problems that I've heard separate state governments was connected to the national government, but there was also problems with trade and commerce. If we got rid of the national government, then do we think that all 50 states are not going to have problems with each other? If we decided to move to a different state, would that state openly welcome us with arms wide open, or would it be difficult like moving to US from Mexico? Would we still be 50 states, or 50 countries? All sorts of questions...

Originally Posted by Frosty

I've heard a lot of inane hypotheticals in my days debating politics, but I'm still trying to wrap my head around this one.

Okay, let me ask you a question: if we no form of government, would we still have a form of currency? The constitution says that the government regulates commerce and trade...that's what the people wanted. So if they can't regulate it because they wouldn't exist, then how would we buy? Would there be a set currency? Would currency lose value and do different means of currency in replace of it? Would separate states ask for the same currency? So if you think about it, it's not that complicated to think about.

[Illuminate]

I was thinkng... if there was no goverment in the US .. who's to say other countries wouldn't try and invade it?
The US would be seen as a weak target...

just a thought

[Frosty]

Originally Posted by aranel05

I think that as long as an individual wants to be able to claim something for his or herself (private property), there has to be a government which would allow them to do so or vice versa. At this point in time I feel that it would be impossible to live in a society with no government. It has become second nature for people to own private property, and without a government to enforce laws on how to obtain such things, it would be chaos. Although humans by nature are social beings, they are also political ones.

How can government be required for private property rights when it must by it's very nature violate private property rights to exist?

Originally Posted by Brandon

Okay, let me ask you a question: if we no form of government, would we still have a form of currency? The constitution says that the government regulates commerce and trade...that's what the people wanted. So if they can't regulate it because they wouldn't exist, then how would we buy? Would there be a set currency? Would currency lose value and do different means of currency in replace of it? Would separate states ask for the same currency? So if you think about it, it's not that complicated to think about.

We can only speculate on what the eventual outcome of the free market would be, but it seems reasonable to assume that currencies based on a commodity standard would emerge. The government isn't required for people to agree upon a medium of exchange. All it does is mandate that they use the government's medium of exchange so that they can rob us through inflation whenever they see fit.

Originally Posted by RainbowSkies

I was thinkng... if there was no goverment in the US .. who's to say other countries wouldn't try and invade it?
The US would be seen as a weak target...

just a thought

When was the last time the US government had to defend against an invasion anyway? All the military seems to be doing currently is playing world policeman and getting foreign people pissed, which is makingthe US less safe, not safer.

[aranel05]

Originally Posted by Frosty

How can government be required for private property rights when it must by it's very nature violate private property rights to exist?

Maybe I'm looking more into the law side of this than government, but when I try to reduce government to it's most basic form I think power, and when I think power, I think law. It may be a somewhat unrealistic depiction of humans, but if you look back to Hobbe's state of nature, or even Rousseau's burgeoning society after society--there was chaos. For example, a man might have seen the benefits in a tree, and therefore claimed the tree his own. But then another individual would see him getting use out of his tree and try to take it from him. It's like a child who see's their friends toy and wants it, but doesn't understand until their parents explain to them that it belongs to their friend that he can't have it. There needs to be laws that mediate who can can have this, who can take that--without the laws there is nothing stopping anyone from taking your belongings or your home.

And sure, there this is a very negative view of human nature, but even if everyone for the most part did get along and respected everyone's privacy right, you would still have criminals that would take advantage of the fact that their is no government. How would these criminals be punished? There is no singular government or power, so how is there law? How can their be a constitution, Charter of Rights, etc? You might be able to say that the people form together to make this, but I am sure that every single person doesn't agree on every thing in coordination. There are certain people who take power. Even in Ancient Greece which is basically one of the earliest forms of an ideal democracy (everyone person in the town would come and vote and whichever side got the most votes won) it still had it's problems. Only men who could own property were considered people, and therefore no one else could vote.

I think every time a large enough group of people live together, there needs to be laws to deviate who can take what, how do you pay for this, how can we punish this person. It may be ideal, and I wish it was, that everyone decide these laws in ultimate coordination, but that is not going to happen. What if there is an odd number of people voting- there will have to be someone who makes the final decision. This means that he or she makes the decision for the entire group.

[Frosty]

Originally Posted by aranel05

Maybe I'm looking more into the law side of this than government, but when I try to reduce government to it's most basic form I think power, and when I think power, I think law. It may be a somewhat unrealistic depiction of humans, but if you look back to Hobbe's state of nature, or even Rousseau's burgeoning society after society--there was chaos. For example, a man might have seen the benefits in a tree, and therefore claimed the tree his own. But then another individual would see him getting use out of his tree and try to take it from him. It's like a child who see's their friends toy and wants it, but doesn't understand until their parents explain to them that it belongs to their friend that he can't have it. There needs to be laws that mediate who can can have this, who can take that--without the laws there is nothing stopping anyone from taking your belongings or your home.

And sure, there this is a very negative view of human nature, but even if everyone for the most part did get along and respected everyone's privacy right, you would still have criminals that would take advantage of the fact that their is no government. How would these criminals be punished? There is no singular government or power, so how is there law? How can their be a constitution, Charter of Rights, etc? You might be able to say that the people form together to make this, but I am sure that every single person doesn't agree on every thing in coordination. There are certain people who take power. Even in Ancient Greece which is basically one of the earliest forms of an ideal democracy (everyone person in the town would come and vote and whichever side got the most votes won) it still had it's problems. Only men who could own property were considered people, and therefore no one else could vote.

I think every time a large enough group of people live together, there needs to be laws to deviate who can take what, how do you pay for this, how can we punish this person. It may be ideal, and I wish it was, that everyone decide these laws in ultimate coordination, but that is not going to happen. What if there is an odd number of people voting- there will have to be someone who makes the final decision. This means that he or she makes the decision for the entire group.

I'm not saying we shouldn't have any means for protecting private property. What I'm saying is that giving one entity a monopoly on providing this service is a bad thing.

[aranel05]

Originally Posted by Frosty

I'm not saying we shouldn't have any means for protecting private property. What I'm saying is that giving one entity a monopoly on providing this service is a bad thing.

Who do you think should provide this service, then?

[Frosty]

Originally Posted by aranel05

Who do you think should provide this service, then?

I'm not making a step by step prescription on how people should interact. That would be missing the whole point of anarchy. I just think it should be provided through any mutually consentual means.

[Composure]

Are we talking about dissolving all types of government from modern systems?

There's one small fact that everyone seems to forget: inflation rates. Australia is said to be one of the most stables economies in the world in relation to inflation rates (approximately 3% every year). This is due to the four major banks in Australia increasing interest rates so people pay off their mortgages/home loans with the extra money they get from inflation rates. This, in turn, stables inflation rates. The problem is that government is the one who influences:
a) The banks to increase interest rates.
b) The people to pay their mortgages/home loans as to abide by the law.
c) The courts that enforce the law.
d) The creation of laws which enable banks to lawfully bind people to pay off their debts.
e) The comissions which ratify Enterprise Bargaining Agreements that set out how much people get paid in a certain industry (thereby having the ability to deny any EBAs which demand too much of a monopoly; meaning that these monopolies could not then increase the sale price of goods to the community and starting a chain-explosion of overly ridiculous salaries).

Perhaps someone should think of how a little thing called hyper-inflation would affect a country.



Unless, well, you're removing the use of currency aswell?

[Xujhan]

Originally Posted by Frosty

I'm not making a step by step prescription on how people should interact. That would be missing the whole point of anarchy. I just think it should be provided through any mutually consentual means.

Hang on wait what? You support anarchy so fervently and you don't even know how you'd implement it? Doesn't that strike you as absurd? Rights are one of the fundamental underpinnings of a free society, and unless you can very specifically elaborate on an alternate system that still accounts for human greed, selfishness and shortsightedness while retaining the freedoms we have today you don't have any argument at all.

Although your last statement might be even more absurd: government is said mutual consensus. Anarchists are a tiny fragment of our society, which makes the consensus opinion by overwhelming majority those of us of who think government is the better solution.

[Frosty]

Originally Posted by Composure

Are we talking about dissolving all types of government from modern systems?

There's one small fact that everyone seems to forget: inflation rates. Australia is said to be one of the most stables economies in the world in relation to inflation rates (approximately 3% every year). This is due to the four major banks in Australia increasing interest rates so people pay off their mortgages/home loans with the extra money they get from inflation rates. This, in turn, stables inflation rates. The problem is that government is the one who influences:
a) The banks to increase interest rates.
b) The people to pay their mortgages/home loans as to abide by the law.
c) The courts that enforce the law.
d) The creation of laws which enable banks to lawfully bind people to pay off their debts.
e) The comissions which ratify Enterprise Bargaining Agreements that set out how much people get paid in a certain industry (thereby having the ability to deny any EBAs which demand too much of a monopoly; meaning that these monopolies could not then increase the sale price of goods to the community and starting a chain-explosion of overly ridiculous salaries).

Perhaps someone should think of how a little thing called hyper-inflation would affect a country.



Unless, well, you're removing the use of currency aswell?

Inflation is always a result of the government manipulating the money supply. Abolish government and you abolish government monetary policy.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Hang on wait what? You support anarchy so fervently and you don't even know how you'd implement it? Doesn't that strike you as absurd? Rights are one of the fundamental underpinnings of a free society, and unless you can very specifically elaborate on an alternate system that still accounts for human greed, selfishness and shortsightedness while retaining the freedoms we have today you don't have any argument at all.

Hang on wait what? You support a free market in food production so fervently and you don't even know what everybody would eat for breakfast every day? Doesn't that strike you as absurd? Food is one of the fundamental underpinnings of a free society, and unless you can very specifically elaborate on an alternate system that still accounts for human greed, selfishness and shortsightedness while retaining the food we have today you don't have any argument at all.

Seriously, you're totally missing the point of a free market here.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Although your last statement might be even more absurd: government is said mutual consensus. Anarchists are a tiny fragment of our society, which makes the consensus opinion by overwhelming majority those of us of who think government is the better solution.

People who explicitly advocate the abolition of government are a minority, but abolish all government force and see how many people follow government regulations and pay taxes, then come back to me and tell me that government currently works through mutual consent.

[Xujhan]

Originally Posted by Frosty

Hang on wait what? You support a free market in food production so fervently and you don't even know what everybody would eat for breakfast every day? Doesn't that strike you as absurd? Food is one of the fundamental underpinnings of a free society, and unless you can very specifically elaborate on an alternate system that still accounts for human greed, selfishness and shortsightedness while retaining the food we have today you don't have any argument at all.

Seriously, you're totally missing the point of a free market here.

Okay, now I'm sure you're just trolling. It seems you either you think you can reasonably advocate doing something without having any idea of whether it's feasible, or you think property rights are a trivial detail. So what exactly is the point of anarchy? Because from here it sounds more and more like you really just don't like the thought of paying taxes rather than actually having a concrete idea of how to improve society.

Another question, by the way. Perhaps this one you'll have an answer for: without antitrust laws, what in an anarchist society prevents the formation of guilds and cartels? It seems that the concept of market pressure inciting competition only works as long as no one decides they'd be better off working together.

Originally Posted by Frosty

People who explicitly advocate the abolition of government are a minority, but abolish all government force and see how many people follow government regulations and pay taxes, then come back to me and tell me that government currently works through mutual consent.

How many months of thievery, vandalism and violence are we going to wait before we ask people whether or not they'd like their government back?

[Frosty]

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Okay, now I'm sure you're just trolling. It seems you either you think you can reasonably advocate doing something without having any idea of whether it's feasible, or you think property rights are a trivial detail. So what exactly is the point of anarchy? Because from here it sounds more and more like you really just don't like the thought of paying taxes rather than actually having a concrete idea of how to improve society.

There's plenty of speculation about how the market would deal with such things (which you'd be aware of if you chose to attack anarchy in a way more educated than HUUURR ANARCHISTS WANNNA BURN CARS), but ultimately we can only do just that, speculate, on what the market outcome is going to be. Like I said in my previous post, it's like criticising a free market in food production because it's advocates can't say with 100% certainty what people will eat for breakfast or what percentage of total crop output potatoes will make up.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Another question, by the way. Perhaps this one you'll have an answer for: without antitrust laws, what in an anarchist society prevents the formation of guilds and cartels? It seems that the concept of market pressure inciting competition only works as long as no one decides they'd be better off working together.

Guilds and cartels are only sustainable when the government bans anyone from competing with them.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

How many months of thievery, vandalism and violence are we going to wait before we ask people whether or not they'd like their government back?

Again, the market would be just fine dealing with this, but then again, I guess you're not gonna believe me untill I can give you a 1000 page report on exactly how this would occur complete with the exact amount and distribution of officers and security systems.

[MisplacedDreamer]

I think that some sort of hierarchy would arise and eventually another government would arise. I think the one community that ended in 2004 is sort of amusing as it did end so it could be considered as a failure.

[emma01]

I think all countries need some laws, and without the government the price of ciggy's would go back down, minimum wage would go down, we need the government to have price controls.
Would countries go mad? Probably not, I dont think we would all go round killing people as I think that the reason we don't go round killing people is just common sense rather than because of the laws. But still, it is good to have some laws, children may be abused, racism may come back into it, things may just happen.

[Frosty]

Originally Posted by emma01

without the government the price of ciggy's would go back down

Oh boo hoo the moral police won't be able to rob smokers.

Originally Posted by emma01

minimum wage would go down, we need the government to have price controls.

If you think minimum wage and price controls in general are a reason we should have government you need to learn a bit more about supply and demand.

Originally Posted by emma01

racism may come back into it

How so? It's generally unprofitable on the free market to be racist, and there's plenty of examples in history of when government itself has been the source of discrimination.

[Alrex]

If somehow the government crashes and there is no more, I am purchasing a gun, filling up my bathtub and sinks with water, stocking up on dry foods, barricading my house and if anyone comes within 10 feet of my barbed wire fences I will shoot to kill.

There would be complete choas. Imagine a protest turning into a riot. Lets take the G20 for example and amplify it by 6 billion people imagining there is no government left on earth.

People follow other people. Lets say all the sudden you are in the middle of a busy street and all the sudden yell RUN and start running. Peoples natural reaction will to start running.

Humans are constantly pinging each other on how to act or what to do.

Without a government to give them laws or structure, people will either turn fully to religion or riot. And I believe the people turning to religion will die first because I don't think God or Budha will stop bullets for them.

[Kitty.]

I don't think that would quite work.
I would imagine total chaos.
I would probably be quite fearful if there was no government.
How would we work out currency?
Also, when I am part of small groups, we always make someone the leader or head of the group to keep order.
Sure, some people would survive, but without government, I would imagine that there would be increased violence.

Honestly, rich people would probably just take over eventually.

[Brandon]

Originally Posted by Frosty

If you think minimum wage and price controls in general are a reason we should have government you need to learn a bit more about supply and demand.

That is, of course, if we had the technology to build the products without a government in the first place.

Originally Posted by Frosty

How so? It's generally unprofitable on the free market to be racist, and there's plenty of examples in history of when government itself has been the source of discrimination.

Some of the founding fathers who owned slaves wouldn't mind if owning slaves became illegal. But let's not just point the finger at the government because you're neglecting the fact that a lot of people, especially in the south, owned slaves. One of the main reasons for the Civil War was to stop the expansion of slavery in the South. And they weren't told by the government to have slaves, they did it on their own free will. So I completely disagree with this.

[Toast]

Only if human mentality changes.

[Frosty]

Originally Posted by Alrex

If somehow the government crashes and there is no more, I am purchasing a gun, filling up my bathtub and sinks with water, stocking up on dry foods, barricading my house and if anyone comes within 10 feet of my barbed wire fences I will shoot to kill.

There would be complete choas. Imagine a protest turning into a riot. Lets take the G20 for example and amplify it by 6 billion people imagining there is no government left on earth.

People follow other people. Lets say all the sudden you are in the middle of a busy street and all the sudden yell RUN and start running. Peoples natural reaction will to start running.

Humans are constantly pinging each other on how to act or what to do.

Without a government to give them laws or structure, people will either turn fully to religion or riot. And I believe the people turning to religion will die first because I don't think God or Budha will stop bullets for them.

I dunno about you, but the reason I'm not out on a killing/raping spree right now isn't just because the government is telling me not to.
Also;
>Implying only a government can protect person and property

Originally Posted by Kitty.

How would we work out currency?

The market would likely settle on some sort of uniform currency. From looking back on history and from looking at what makes the most sense from an economic perspective, this would probably be some form of commodity based currency. And it'd work out a hell of a lot better without the government to inflate the currency, making it worthless and causing the business cycle in the process.

Originally Posted by Brandon

That is, of course, if we had the technology to build the products without a government in the first place.

What?

Originally Posted by Brandon

Some of the founding fathers who owned slaves wouldn't mind if owning slaves became illegal. But let's not just point the finger at the government because you're neglecting the fact that a lot of people, especially in the south, owned slaves. One of the main reasons for the Civil War was to stop the expansion of slavery in the South. And they weren't told by the government to have slaves, they did it on their own free will. So I completely disagree with this.

And the government also in effect subsidised slavery by monopolising the provision of "justice" and forcefully returning slaves to their "owners". I also recall reading recently about a case back during segregation when a train company was fined by the government for not putting blacks in a seperate carraige. There's the free market being racist alright .

Originally Posted by Toast

Only if human mentality changes.

How so? Surely if humans are so imperfect that they will do evil things under anarchy, we wouldn't dare take a group of these people and give them the violent, monopolistic powers of a government.

[Kitty.]

Originally Posted by Frosty

The market would likely settle on some sort of uniform currency. From looking back on history and from looking at what makes the most sense from an economic perspective, this would probably be some form of commodity based currency. And it'd work out a hell of a lot better without the government to inflate the currency, making it worthless and causing the business cycle in the process.

And how would 6 billion people decide on uniform currency?

[Frosty]

Originally Posted by Kitty.

And how would 6 billion people decide on uniform currency?

It occur occur naturally through trade. People are going to tend towards using something that has the traits that make something a desirablel currency. It's not a case of getting 6 billion people into a polling booth and having them "decide" that way.