Why are people so affraid of anarchy?

[Pat Mustard]

Government isn't actively trying to protect us. It only intervenes when a psychopath has already murdered someone. And then they put him not to a place where he will rehabilitate, but to a place from where he returns with even more psychological problems, which made him murder in the first place. For all we know, they could in fact be making things worse. Justice systems, judges and lawyers, have no interest in bringing peace and justice to the society, they make money by making other people argue with each other. Even if people are naturally violent, the last thing you need is a government. Government is made of people with power, and power corrupts, it doesn't make people better. If politicians really wanted to help the poor, they would give their undeserved money to charity, they certainly wouldn't pass a law that effectively makes it illegal for the poorest to have a job (called minimum wage law). If they really cared about the environment, they would stop subsidizing factory farming, that hurts the environment more than any other industry. They certainly wouldn't pass the emission standards laws that cause monopolies by hurting small corporations more than big ones. Politicians are good only at having long, boring and nonsense discussions. And laws are statements about how society should work made without evidence, and they should be dismissed without evidence. So, why are people so affraid of anarchy?

Because up to eight turns of no groeth, no production and no commerce is a bitch.

---

Ah yes, "capitalism."

From a guy who is constantly and consistently negative, I'd expect as much.

To quote Churchill "Capitalism is the best economic system, apart from all the others. But it keeps me rich, waa-hey!"

---

No, not really.  Capitalism describes a system where industry and trade are run solely by private entities for profit.  Great system if you happen to have money, pretty shitty if you don't.  Or you have extravagant needs, like healthcare (which IMO, should not be a for-profit enterprise).

bold mine

In a perfect world that would be great. But in our society I don't see much medical advancement based on altruism alone.

Most of it pretty much is. Nealy all advancements over the last 100 years were directly from government or through wholly government funded academic institutions, made by people who were doing it for the jouy of discovery. The remainder was by researchers who had the means to carry it out on their own.

Most of what a company considers R&D is a tax dodge, the rest is buying out other peoples' discoveries.

---

Your thought process is "if a government has ever done a bad thing, all governments and forms of government are bad."  That is so sophomoric I don't even want to get into a conversation with you to explain why.

When has a government ever done a good thing? I mean, sure, politicians usually have good intentions, but when have their policies ever achieved what they were intended to?

Ah, television. Quite a lot of modern medicine. Public transport. Health and safety regulation. Mass education (which obviously hasn't taken in your case).