Functions of a Government

[Kubra]

And if you only purchase food that has been certified as inspected, you will not get food poisoning.

or we could just inspect all of the food and then there's less of a chance of a customer making a mistake and dying of food poisoning.

is there an actual reason that we shouldn't do that, or just government bad?

If I wanna eat sketchy coyote meat from an even sketchier chinese restaurant (not a stereotype, this actually happened locally lol) then I should damn well be able to

[Sordhau]

The ideal government is one that is democratic, republican, decentralized, and stateless. If it is lacking in any one of these qualities it is either an unfair or oppressive system - but usually both.

"Democratic" in the sense that any and all officials are chosen by the general public; specifically by those who they will be working for and with. Candidates will be selected from among their communities by said community. There will not be annual elections - rather the public will have the power to call an election at any time for any reason to replace an official they deem to be grossly inadequate for their position, so long as there is a majority popular support for the election to be held. Offices will have only the powers delegated to them by the public, nothing more. In this way the people choose whom they please, when they please, with as much authority and power as they deem appropriate.

"Republican" in the sense that the nature of government is a public affair. The government will not be permitted to keep secrets from the public; the transfer of resources, any and all votes, and all instances of internal political discussion cannot occur behind closed doors. No secrets, no lies, no privilege. Officials will live among the population, will not have official security, and their proceedings will not be closed to the public either for viewership or attendance.

"Decentralized" in the sense that government power begins at the bottom and dilutes at the top. The further up the chain of bureaucracy you go, the less authority they have. As such immediate problems requiring immediate solutions will be addressed immediately at the local level.

"Stateless" in the sense that the government shall not have any sort of capability to enforce it's decisions, ensuring that unpopular measures cannot be implemented against the express will of the population. No law enforcement, no armed forces. If need be the government can organize a purely volunteer militias in times of need for an armed force whose express purpose shall be to address the emergency it was created for and, once that emergency has abated, will be dissolved thereafter.

To prevent rampant abuse of this system currency, class, and private property will also have to be abolished (surprise, it's Communism!) lest the market, hierarchy, or privilege be used to the advantage of villains seeking to subvert the system and establish tyranny or inequality.

[Rusozak]

The ideal government is one that is democratic, republican, decentralized, and stateless. If it is lacking in any one of these qualities it is either an unfair or oppressive system - but usually both.

How can a government be stateless?

[Sordhau]

The ideal government is one that is democratic, republican, decentralized, and stateless. If it is lacking in any one of these qualities it is either an unfair or oppressive system - but usually both.

How can a government be stateless?

Is this a rhetorical question?

[The Black Forrest]

The ideal government is one that is democratic, republican, decentralized, and stateless. If it is lacking in any one of these qualities it is either an unfair or oppressive system - but usually both.

Uhhuh….so how would you keep order and laws consistent?

[Sordhau]

The ideal government is one that is democratic, republican, decentralized, and stateless. If it is lacking in any one of these qualities it is either an unfair or oppressive system - but usually both.

Uhhuh….so how would you keep order and laws consistent?

Perhaps I oversimplified my post. Let me edit it with more detail.

[The Black Forrest]

Uhhuh….so how would you keep order and laws consistent?

Perhaps I oversimplified my post. Let me edit it with more detail.

Thanks. I was not understanding the value of such a setup…..

[Rusozak]

How can a government be stateless?

Is this a rhetorical question?

No, I'm actually confused. The government is the state and the state is the government, no?

[Sordhau]

Is this a rhetorical question?

No, I'm actually confused. The government is the state and the state is the government, no?

...No? The state is the aspect of the government which enforces it's authority. It is the institution of violence against the public that maintains order by way of force or coercion. Police, the military, and sometimes the courts - though the latter can exist without a state. A government, too, can exist without a state and ideally should.

[Informed Consent]

Is this a rhetorical question?

No, I'm actually confused. The government is the state and the state is the government, no?

Yes, the "state", and the "government" can be synonymous.
For some, states are also an organizational subdivision, and have varying degrees of administrative autonomy depending on the philosophy informing the nation's character.

[Rusozak]

No, I'm actually confused. The government is the state and the state is the government, no?

...No? The state is the aspect of the government which enforces it's authority. It is the institution of violence against the public that maintains order by way of force or coercion. Police, the military, and sometimes the courts - though the latter can exist without a state. A government, too, can exist without a state and ideally should.

But a government is meaningless if it can't enforce its authority. So I still fail to see the importance of the distinction. Are there any examples of a so-called stateless government functioning?

[San Lumen]

The ideal government is one that is democratic, republican, decentralized, and stateless. If it is lacking in any one of these qualities it is either an unfair or oppressive system - but usually both.

"Democratic" in the sense that any and all officials are chosen by the general public; specifically by those who they will be working for and with. Candidates will be selected from among their communities by said community. There will not be annual elections - rather the public will have the power to call an election at any time for any reason to replace an official they deem to be grossly inadequate for their position, so long as there is a majority popular support for the election to be held. Offices will have only the powers delegated to them by the public, nothing more. In this way the people choose whom they please, when they please, with as much authority and power as they deem appropriate.

"Republican" in the sense that the nature of government is a public affair. The government will not be permitted to keep secrets from the public; the transfer of resources, any and all votes, and all instances of internal political discussion cannot occur behind closed doors. No secrets, no lies, no privilege. Officials will live among the population, will not have official security, and their proceedings will not be closed to the public either for viewership or attendance.

"Decentralized" in the sense that government power begins at the bottom and dilutes at the top. The further up the chain of bureaucracy you go, the less authority they have. As such immediate problems requiring immediate solutions will be addressed immediately at the local level.

"Stateless" in the sense that the government shall not have any sort of capability to enforce it's decisions, ensuring that unpopular measures cannot be implemented against the express will of the population. No law enforcement, no armed forces. If need be the government can organize a purely volunteer militias in times of need for an armed force whose express purpose shall be to address the emergency it was created for and, once that emergency has abated, will be dissolved thereafter.

To prevent rampant abuse of this system currency, class, and private property will also have to be abolished (surprise, it's Communism!) lest the market, hierarchy, or privilege be used to the advantage of villains seeking to subvert the system and establish tyranny or inequality.

if the government can't enforce its decisions what is the point of it? What's the point of having laws?

Having the power to call and election at any time due to gross incompetence is dumb. What are we defining as this?

Not being able to keep secrets is stupid. How is there supposed to be national security or government research if not nothing can be classified?

[Kalivyah]

The ideal government is one that is democratic, republican, decentralized, and stateless. If it is lacking in any one of these qualities it is either an unfair or oppressive system - but usually both.

"Democratic" in the sense that any and all officials are chosen by the general public; specifically by those who they will be working for and with. Candidates will be selected from among their communities by said community. There will not be annual elections - rather the public will have the power to call an election at any time for any reason to replace an official they deem to be grossly inadequate for their position, so long as there is a majority popular support for the election to be held. Offices will have only the powers delegated to them by the public, nothing more. In this way the people choose whom they please, when they please, with as much authority and power as they deem appropriate.

"Republican" in the sense that the nature of government is a public affair. The government will not be permitted to keep secrets from the public; the transfer of resources, any and all votes, and all instances of internal political discussion cannot occur behind closed doors. No secrets, no lies, no privilege. Officials will live among the population, will not have official security, and their proceedings will not be closed to the public either for viewership or attendance.

"Decentralized" in the sense that government power begins at the bottom and dilutes at the top. The further up the chain of bureaucracy you go, the less authority they have. As such immediate problems requiring immediate solutions will be addressed immediately at the local level.

"Stateless" in the sense that the government shall not have any sort of capability to enforce it's decisions, ensuring that unpopular measures cannot be implemented against the express will of the population. No law enforcement, no armed forces. If need be the government can organize a purely volunteer militias in times of need for an armed force whose express purpose shall be to address the emergency it was created for and, once that emergency has abated, will be dissolved thereafter.

To prevent rampant abuse of this system currency, class, and private property will also have to be abolished (surprise, it's Communism!) lest the market, hierarchy, or privilege be used to the advantage of villains seeking to subvert the system and establish tyranny or inequality.

- interesting, but there's already a system in place here called "term limits". you set term limits on somebody, and if you don't like them you impeach them. allowing people to just immediately remove a leader whenever they want to does not do wonders for democracy. limits have to be put in place. as for "the people"... the people decide how much power a position would have? sure, this would work okay on the small scale like cities or counties, but the fluctuations that would occur would be destabilizing. there's a reason why most countries have constitutions that explicitly give their leaders certain powers and abilities.

- once again i don't have any problem with the idea of organizing a country on a decentralized scale... but it is also important to note that a federal state composed of fundamentally completely autonomous provinces or regions is an alliance of states, not A state. a unitary government is still required for any successful federal or confederal government because it ensures that the federation actually survives and doesn't just crash in on itself... also noting the fact that the central government is the one that tends to organize things on the *national* scale.

- this is also stupid. law enforcement, while certainly shit today is an absolutely necessary force for a society. society will never be perfect and there will always be crime, regardless of the economic or political system... so to suggest that law enforcement all-together, in any form should be abolished is stupid... the same for armed forces. unless this is a dream scenario in which the entire world has been united into a communist utopia and there's no need for any "military" this is begging for your so-called utopia to be destroyed. a military is required to protect the revolution my friend, do you believe that the bourgeois' wouldn't simply walk past your border and take your entire country? you've said that volunteer militias could be organized... but militias are not equivalent to militaries, are they? a militia does not stand up to a military over a long scale war. you could of course fight a long and grueling guerilla war but then you realize that your war effort would be so decentralized that you would be incapable of really properly and effectively organizing any resistance.

i know what you're describing is fundamentally communism, but communism is the end goal, and the END end goal of communism can only be achieved when the bourgeoise has been completely pacified- even then, to suggest that the revolution would be in safe hands without law enforcement or a military of any kind is pure imagination.

most of what you're saying i ultimately agree is the best for society, but law enforcement and a military to safeguard the revolution will always be necessary factors in life. communism is not anarchy, and it should not strive to be.

[Sordhau]

But a government is meaningless if it can't enforce its authority.

People will generally follow follow laws without the looming threat of violence. It happens all the time, in fact. It is when the authority writing those laws is not respected by the population that they start breaking laws regardless of if they are enforced or not. Time and again it has been established that the threat of force does not make people follow laws, and in fact sometimes serves as a motive to break them. It happens on a daily basis. If the government wants it's authority to be respected it needs to be a respectable government. This isn't possible in a statist society, because states demand obedience under threat of penalty. That is, in and of itself, something that should not be respected.

So I still fail to see the importance of the distinction.

The government writes the laws, the state enforces them. It isn't that hard to understand.

Are there any examples of a so-called stateless government functioning?

Stateless societies have been around since before agriculture, and were the dominant form of society for most people until being wiped out by the industrial power of European Empires.

The ideal government is one that is democratic, republican, decentralized, and stateless. If it is lacking in any one of these qualities it is either an unfair or oppressive system - but usually both.

"Democratic" in the sense that any and all officials are chosen by the general public; specifically by those who they will be working for and with. Candidates will be selected from among their communities by said community. There will not be annual elections - rather the public will have the power to call an election at any time for any reason to replace an official they deem to be grossly inadequate for their position, so long as there is a majority popular support for the election to be held. Offices will have only the powers delegated to them by the public, nothing more. In this way the people choose whom they please, when they please, with as much authority and power as they deem appropriate.

"Republican" in the sense that the nature of government is a public affair. The government will not be permitted to keep secrets from the public; the transfer of resources, any and all votes, and all instances of internal political discussion cannot occur behind closed doors. No secrets, no lies, no privilege. Officials will live among the population, will not have official security, and their proceedings will not be closed to the public either for viewership or attendance.

"Decentralized" in the sense that government power begins at the bottom and dilutes at the top. The further up the chain of bureaucracy you go, the less authority they have. As such immediate problems requiring immediate solutions will be addressed immediately at the local level.

"Stateless" in the sense that the government shall not have any sort of capability to enforce it's decisions, ensuring that unpopular measures cannot be implemented against the express will of the population. No law enforcement, no armed forces. If need be the government can organize a purely volunteer militias in times of need for an armed force whose express purpose shall be to address the emergency it was created for and, once that emergency has abated, will be dissolved thereafter.

To prevent rampant abuse of this system currency, class, and private property will also have to be abolished (surprise, it's Communism!) lest the market, hierarchy, or privilege be used to the advantage of villains seeking to subvert the system and establish tyranny or inequality.

- interesting, but there's already a system in place here called "term limits". you set term limits on somebody, and if you don't like them you impeach them. allowing people to just immediately remove a leader whenever they want to does not do wonders for democracy. limits have to be put in place. as for "the people"... the people decide how much power a position would have? sure, this would work okay on the small scale like cities or counties, but the fluctuations that would occur would be destabilizing. there's a reason why most countries have constitutions that explicitly give their leaders certain powers and abilities.

- once again i don't have any problem with the idea of organizing a country on a decentralized scale... but it is also important to note that a federal state composed of fundamentally completely autonomous provinces or regions is an alliance of states, not A state. a unitary government is still required for any successful federal or confederal government because it ensures that the federation actually survives and doesn't just crash in on itself... also noting the fact that the central government is the one that tends to organize things on the *national* scale.

- this is also stupid. law enforcement, while certainly shit today is an absolutely necessary force for a society. society will never be perfect and there will always be crime, regardless of the economic or political system... so to suggest that law enforcement all-together, in any form should be abolished is stupid... the same for armed forces. unless this is a dream scenario in which the entire world has been united into a communist utopia and there's no need for any "military" this is begging for your so-called utopia to be destroyed. a military is required to protect the revolution my friend, do you believe that the bourgeois' wouldn't simply walk past your border and take your entire country? you've said that volunteer militias could be organized... but militias are not equivalent to militaries, are they? a militia does not stand up to a military over a long scale war. you could of course fight a long and grueling guerilla war but then you realize that your war effort would be so decentralized that you would be incapable of really properly and effectively organizing any resistance.

i know what you're describing is fundamentally communism, but communism is the end goal, and the END end goal of communism can only be achieved when the bourgeoise has been completely pacified- even then, to suggest that the revolution would be in safe hands without law enforcement or a military of any kind is pure imagination.

most of what you're saying i ultimately agree is the best for society, but law enforcement and a military to safeguard the revolution will always be necessary factors in life. communism is not anarchy, and it should not strive to be.

You simultaneously understand that I'm talking about the fulfillment of Communism--which you recognize as the end goal of the Communist Revolution--yet feel the need to stress that Communism isn't possible right now.

Do you not see the contradiction here?

Never mind that stateless is a vital component of Communism; as long as there are police and soldiers, there is a state. If you are unwilling to see these institutions done away with then, frankly, you don't want Communism because you don't want to abolish the state. The end goals of Communists and Left-wing Anarchists aren't dissimilar; it is more the means of arriving at that point that marks the difference.

[Dumb Ideologies]

The government will do stuff, more stuff than you can even imagine.

[evil socialist noises]

[Duvniask]

The ideal government is one that is democratic, republican, decentralized, and stateless. If it is lacking in any one of these qualities it is either an unfair or oppressive system - but usually both.

"Democratic" in the sense that any and all officials are chosen by the general public; specifically by those who they will be working for and with. Candidates will be selected from among their communities by said community. There will not be annual elections - rather the public will have the power to call an election at any time for any reason to replace an official they deem to be grossly inadequate for their position, so long as there is a majority popular support for the election to be held. Offices will have only the powers delegated to them by the public, nothing more. In this way the people choose whom they please, when they please, with as much authority and power as they deem appropriate.

"Republican" in the sense that the nature of government is a public affair. The government will not be permitted to keep secrets from the public; the transfer of resources, any and all votes, and all instances of internal political discussion cannot occur behind closed doors. No secrets, no lies, no privilege. Officials will live among the population, will not have official security, and their proceedings will not be closed to the public either for viewership or attendance.

"Decentralized" in the sense that government power begins at the bottom and dilutes at the top. The further up the chain of bureaucracy you go, the less authority they have. As such immediate problems requiring immediate solutions will be addressed immediately at the local level.

"Stateless" in the sense that the government shall not have any sort of capability to enforce it's decisions, ensuring that unpopular measures cannot be implemented against the express will of the population. No law enforcement, no armed forces. If need be the government can organize a purely volunteer militias in times of need for an armed force whose express purpose shall be to address the emergency it was created for and, once that emergency has abated, will be dissolved thereafter.

To prevent rampant abuse of this system currency, class, and private property will also have to be abolished (surprise, it's Communism!) lest the market, hierarchy, or privilege be used to the advantage of villains seeking to subvert the system and establish tyranny or inequality.

I wouldn't fault someone for thinking you're competing to come up with the most ineffective form of government imaginable. It's nothing more than that same old petite bourgeois demand for self government repackaged as an idealized communism.

And what is with this democratic fetishism? Democracy exists to bridge the gap and compromise between different interests in society - with the abolition of classes, there won't be class interests that have to be aligned or, if need be, overruled. Instead, interests would become more personal. For many decisions there need be no majority decision-making at all, because the very act of inviting people to decide on them would be a waste of everyone's time, plus the concomitant decentralization of authority proposed here would make it a nightmare to accomplish anything.

[Old Tyrannia]

The purpose of the State is to produce and maintain an environment conducive to the pursuit of virtue. Providing its citizens with a degree of stability and security should be the primary objective of government, whether that means offering protection to the peasantry so that they needn't fear having their farms burned and crops seized by marauding raiders or, in more modern times, ensuring the availability of essential necessities such as food, fuel and medical care to all the members of society. The secondary objective should be creating opportunities for people to pursue personal and spiritual development, through organised religion, art, general education, scientific investigation and so forth.

[Elwher]

No, I'm actually confused. The government is the state and the state is the government, no?

...No? The state is the aspect of the government which enforces it's authority. It is the institution of violence against the public that maintains order by way of force or coercion. Police, the military, and sometimes the courts - though the latter can exist without a state. A government, too, can exist without a state and ideally should.

Person A has something, Person B is stronger, wants it, and takes it. Without some policing, how does Person A get his property back?

[Xerographica]

Oh no.

Sorry. I like food being safe. I have had food poisoning and it’s not worth waiting for the “free market” getting around to correcting it.

A long time ago i lived in china for half a year. i ate a wide variety of very delicious and affordable street food nearly everyday and didn't get food poisoning once.

regulation has 3 main results

1. decrease the variety and quality of food
2. increase the price of food
3. decrease employment options

everybody gets screwed. poorer people get especially screwed.

you have this idea that legislators are magically enlightened enough to correctly weigh the costs and benefits of regulation for you, me and every other unique individual in society. this idea is the most harmful idea ever.

you want to voluntarily contribute to a non-profit organization that certifies participating food companies as meeting a high standard of cleanliness? fine, no problem. if you're concerned about the problem of free-riding, fine, it's a reasonable concern, therefore taxes. but it is entirely not fine if you think it's a good idea for somebody who doesn't even know my favorite fruit to decide how my taxes should be spent.

[Sordhau]

...No? The state is the aspect of the government which enforces it's authority. It is the institution of violence against the public that maintains order by way of force or coercion. Police, the military, and sometimes the courts - though the latter can exist without a state. A government, too, can exist without a state and ideally should.

Person A has something, Person B is stronger, wants it, and takes it. Without some policing, how does Person A get his property back?

Person A would likely have a gun, neutralizing the advantage of Person B's strength and preventing the theft in the first place. And if for some reason they couldn't, well, they have a gun and can take their stuff back and no one can really stop them.

It's also important to note that police in fact are very bad at retrieving stolen property in the first place. Once it's gone if it isn't retrieved in the first 24 hours it's pretty much gone, and most of the time it isn't found within the first 24 hours.

[Kalivyah]

You simultaneously understand that I'm talking about the fulfillment of Communism--which you recognize as the end goal of the Communist Revolution--yet feel the need to stress that Communism isn't possible right now.

Do you not see the contradiction here?

Never mind that stateless is a vital component of Communism; as long as there are police and soldiers, there is a state. If you are unwilling to see these institutions done away with then, frankly, you don't want Communism because you don't want to abolish the state. The end goals of Communists and Left-wing Anarchists aren't dissimilar; it is more the means of arriving at that point that marks the difference.

- Yes, correct. I understand that you're talking about communism. That doesn't mean I don't think that the idea of communism itself is flawed. There are times when I can disagree with the theory of Marx and Engels and in this case I will always disagree with the notion that the state should be entirely withered away.

- Communism is stateless not because the state has been abolished, but because society has a whole has simply "evolved"... for lack of a better word, past the need for a state. It's like using something for a while and then slowly over time just not using it as often until you just stop using it all-together. The material circumstances for such a miracle to happen though have not happened and are likely to not happen for a very long time. The stateless societies which you've pointed out were not organized societies in the modern sense but often just tribal bands and whatnot. Of course there was no "state" because in large part these were small communities who did not possess our orthodox understanding of "government". It works on the smaller scale because the less people there are, the less opinions there are to consider, the less needs- etc. etc.

- Law enforcement will ''always'' be necessary. I don't mean that in the sense that law enforcement will always be required and CONSTANTLY be on duty! But I do mean that in the sense that there are times when laws will be broken and an institution will have to enforce those laws. I believe most people to be good human beings who follow the law, but what about those whom don't? You don't expect some random civilian force to volunteer to become a militia to stop the random criminal... do you? I hope not. Police shouldn't be heavily armed, yes- I agree. But to completely abolish any sort of law enforcement is quite literally begging for instability.

- Soldiers, if this is a world where the world has fully united under communism... would likely not be necessary, I agree. But for a society in which communism has been achieved internally but not externally, abolishing the military as a whole poses a problem: You cannot rely purely on volunteer militias for defense. That's not how it works. As I mentioned previously militias will never be able to stand up to a military. So long as the bourgeois is able to threaten the revolution, there is always going to be a need for a force to protect the revolution.

- Yes, the goals of us are quite similar. The difference is that while we understand that communism is the end goal and takes a significant amount of time to transition to, anarchists believe in doing everything instantaneously, basically skipping the need for socialism entirely... which is a direct spit in the face to basic Marxist theory. It has never worked.

[Kalivyah]

Person A has something, Person B is stronger, wants it, and takes it. Without some policing, how does Person A get his property back?

Person A would likely have a gun, neutralizing the advantage of Person B's strength and preventing the theft in the first place. And if for some reason they couldn't, well, they have a gun and can take their stuff back and no one can really stop them.

It's also important to note that police in fact are very bad at retrieving stolen property in the first place. Once it's gone if it isn't retrieved in the first 24 hours it's pretty much gone, and most of the time it isn't found within the first 24 hours.

Okay, so what if both people have guns? The only way for society to reportedly be "perfect" and enforce anything without law enforcement is apparently for you to have everyone with a gun in their hand, but then you come to the realization that if everyone has a gun then that means that nothing will get done... because just as easily as you can enforce YOUR will with a gun, so too can others.

Like you said, "they have a gun... and no one can really stop them". But I suppose that only the most kind and good-willed people would have guns! But that would mean a bureaucracy and a system to make sure that only those people are getting guns... and that system would also require people of a neutral party to support it... which means law enforcement.

Ah.

[Sordhau]

Person A would likely have a gun, neutralizing the advantage of Person B's strength and preventing the theft in the first place. And if for some reason they couldn't, well, they have a gun and can take their stuff back and no one can really stop them.

It's also important to note that police in fact are very bad at retrieving stolen property in the first place. Once it's gone if it isn't retrieved in the first 24 hours it's pretty much gone, and most of the time it isn't found within the first 24 hours.

Okay, so what if both people have guns? The only way for society to reportedly be "perfect" and enforce anything without law enforcement is apparently for you to have everyone with a gun in their hand, but then you come to the realization that if everyone has a gun then that means that nothing will get done... because just as easily as you can enforce YOUR will with a gun, so too can others.

Like you said, "they have a gun... and no one can really stop them". But I suppose that only the most kind and good-willed people would have guns! But that would mean a bureaucracy and a system to make sure that only those people are getting guns... and that system would also require people of a neutral party to support it... which means law enforcement.

Ah.

It's easy to win debates when you argue with yourself.

Maybe let me counter my claims instead of assuming what my arguments will be?

[Kalivyah]

Oh no.

Sorry. I like food being safe. I have had food poisoning and it’s not worth waiting for the “free market” getting around to correcting it.

A long time ago i lived in china for half a year. i ate a wide variety of very delicious and affordable street food nearly everyday and didn't get food poisoning once.

regulation has 3 main results

1. decrease the variety and quality of food
2. increase the price of food
3. decrease employment options

everybody gets screwed. poorer people get especially screwed.

you have this idea that legislators are magically enlightened enough to correctly weigh the costs and benefits of regulation for you, me and every other unique individual in society. this idea is the most harmful idea ever.

you want to voluntarily contribute to a non-profit organization that certifies participating food companies as meeting a high standard of cleanliness? fine, no problem. if you're concerned about the problem of free-riding, fine, it's a reasonable concern, therefore taxes. but it is entirely not fine if you think it's a good idea for somebody who doesn't even know my favorite fruit to decide how my taxes should be spent.

Didn't you just say that you lived in China? You mean the one who is still quite regulatory of its economy? Who has never been fully free market capitalist? You... you literally just proved the point that regulation increases the variety and quality of food... not to mention that regulation can actually cause prices to drop down as it prevents corporations from increasing the prices of products.
Ahh... average libertarian.

[Kalivyah]

Okay, so what if both people have guns? The only way for society to reportedly be "perfect" and enforce anything without law enforcement is apparently for you to have everyone with a gun in their hand, but then you come to the realization that if everyone has a gun then that means that nothing will get done... because just as easily as you can enforce YOUR will with a gun, so too can others.

Like you said, "they have a gun... and no one can really stop them". But I suppose that only the most kind and good-willed people would have guns! But that would mean a bureaucracy and a system to make sure that only those people are getting guns... and that system would also require people of a neutral party to support it... which means law enforcement.

Ah.

It's easy to win debates when you argue with yourself.

Maybe let me counter my claims instead of assuming what my arguments will be?

... Maybe you should have like, done that first instead of writing about it?