posted on May, 4 2010 @ 07:27 AM
Anarchy is the best form of government.
Because no government works, therefore anarchy, the absence of government, is the best form of government.
Compare anarchy to the limited government principles America was founded upon. In anarchy, if two people fight over a square of land, the strongest
man wins. In a limited government, the government has the duty of enforcing contracts. If the government is too limited, anarchy will prevail. If it
is a strong government, the government becomes a third party, at which three options can take place
1. the government gives the land to the morally right party
2. the government gives the land to the morally wrong party
3. the government takes the land for itself
Imagine you are a person fighting for a piece of land, and the government comes in and gives the land to your enemy, that would be worse than if it
was a state of anarchy where you alone have to fight for your land. The government is a second army for you to fight. In the very rare case that the
government helps you, obviously you will like this, which is how government gains a foothold. However, if the government helps only itself, both you
and your enemy are now enemies of the government.
No matter how you look at it, anarchy, while not perfect, is a necessary evil.
Consider the Von Mises Institute of privatization with limited government. Limited government is like a Sheriff waiting around at the station for
clues to come in about a bandit. Without the will of the community, they are nothing. And so limited government is dismissible on the grounds that it
is only as powerful as the individuals in charge of the government, which when you think about it, is a form of anarchy itself, since anarchy is
totalitarianism by each individual person (everyone has a will without any unifying order). Anarchy is superior to government because with government,
one person is the dictator, with anarchy, all people are the dictators, so it is more fair. Not perfect, but a necessary evil.
Complete privatization is nothing more than anarchy. Imagine if Wal-Mart and Target had free reign to compete however they wanted with each other.
They could wage war on each other, or against their customers. Anarchy. But, there would always be some form of control, namely in their own
organization. So a limited government always naturally forms within the realm of the individual. This is caused by the limited free will of the
individual. Each person has a share of skills and power, and that is the only form of government in existence.
But as for a world government platform, in deciding to call it a Republic or a Democracy, it is better to just ignore the platform altogether, call it
anarchy if need be, and rest assured that each person performs according to their own needs. Anything more would be impractical.
All forms of welfare are reserved towards the strong giving to the weak out of good will, and not forced compliance. All forms of crime are given by
the strong upon the weak in ill-will. This is not perfect, as the weak are preyed upon, but it gives the weak an incentive to become strong, whereas
welfare would perpetuate their helplessness. Thus, anarchy is a necessary evil. The true form of government (since all governments fall upon the
individual, subject to his own will against the will of every other in a state of chaos), and anarchy is the best morally for those who are weak, to
encourage them to become strong on their own, rather than on the dependence of a third party that works on its own interests and could possibly want
to perpetuate the weakness of the population.
The point is, governments will always form because weak people need to unite together. But strong people will always be self sufficient, and so
anarchy will also reign. It is a clash between collectivism and individuality, between government and anarchy. Both take place in the world at the
same time. Anarchy, surprisingly, the more natural.