(October 22, 2012 at 9:57 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I'll pay them more (assuming I'm not the privately funded police myself...which I am). I don't think you're going to fare so well against me. I'm a violent drunk with guns, a small army, and a technical or two, remember?
Natural selection. Plus, this is your opinion that I wouldn't fare well against you. Also, what's to say I'm not more equipped? Again, I believe that only the strong should/would survive in a society like this. Do you think the police isn't paid off, bought or corrupt? My father was in law enforcement, I know this to be quite true. With a little digging I'm sure you could find cases where this is true, too.
You act as if there's no violence against innocent people now & this would only come by way of "no government". This is obviously not the case. But, a lot of criminals have learned how to work the system & are more apt to harm those that may not be as inclined to know what their rights are. In a society based on vigilantism, each person would have the right to defend themselves as they see fit. Therefore, making criminals less likely to do harm to just anyone, because at any time, that person could retaliate.
If one looks at the old west, it's a lot less violent than media/Hollywood would lead you to believe. The vast majority of towns were free-market enterprises, lex talionis (law of retribution) & there was no government & hired bounty hunters (privatized law enforcement). The common assumption is that there was lawlessness everywhere & people were killing other people left & right. Actually, crime was low due to the very reasons I mentioned earlier about criminals.
"One must do violence to the object of one's desire; when it surrenders, the pleasure is greater."
- Marquis de Sade
- Marquis de Sade
