ingliz wrote:OK, is this permissable:
I am a good muslim.
My peaceful project is to raise a family as my father raised his. I contract to be governed by strict sharia law.
My daughter disrupts this peaceful project.
She refuses to wear the veil, drinks alchocol, and indulges in premarital sex with a string of boyfriends. I arrange for her to be married to a nice traditional boy, she spits in my face, and runs off to marry her latest waste of space an infidel.
The law states that an unmarried women's role is to be subject to her father.
She has broken the law.
I kill her.
Where did she sign on to Sharia law? You see, of course, how upholding the non aggression principle means places that do this sort of thing dissolve very quickly. Applied equally to women and children? The hell you say!
In parts of India, it's common practice for men who are dissatisfied with their wives to burn them alive. If you think a government solves this sort of behavior, all I have to do is ask what your opinion of the situation would be if wife burning was a government mandate.
Given the history of governments, that's not even remotely far fetched.
The truth is that without a government, you and your daughter killing swine you call a community would be completely cut off from the rest of society. The rest of us would simply cut you off. You can't use our roads. You can't enter our communities. You cannot use our health care or trade with us. I hope you are self sustaining because we'll have nothing to do with you. And when your children escape your hell hole we will take them in, and what will you have left?
Then we are in agreement. I would like to point out that now you can no longer say that "an anarchy or ancap society cannot exist because it doesn't have a governmet". Because ancaps don't really want to eliminate any arbitration organization, rather they want to remove taxes and legalized monopoly. But according to you they would still have a government.
I would like to urge your to keep this in mind when discussing governments with anarchists. They will often use a different definition of government and without clarification of your definition, you will be misunderstood and will not be able to understand.
This is why statists live in language, in abstract concepts, and have such difficulty discussing reality absent perception. It's the problem Socrates had dealing with sophists.
Here in reality, a government is not defined by the services it provides, because non-government agencies have provided every single service the government provides today. Slave owners used to build roads, that doesn't mean they were governments. The only defining characteristic of a government is it's self proclaimed monopoly on the legitimate use of force.Administrator note: I know you have been advised already that back-to-back posting is discouraged on PoFo. I would be grateful if you could observe this as it would reduce the burden on moderators and administrators who, as in this case, then have to edit your posts retrospectively. Thank you.