So, way back in the day, when man lived in blissful anarchy, two tribes.... errr... family groups occupied the same territory. One tribe was peaceful, the other was warlike. The peaceful tribe flourished, since they spent all their time on growing crops and what not. The warlike tribe, however, did not flourish because they spent too much time chucking rocks at things. One day, the elders from the warlike tribe decided that the peaceful tribe was making poor use of their land, seeing as they were not chucking rocks at things. They decided that this misuse was a transgression upon their liberty and proceeded to annihilate the peaceful tribe, being much better at rock chucking, and take their bounty for themselves. Sadly, the peaceful tribe is now but a memory... which is good seeing as they did not take the time to cultivate a militia.
Not quite sure how to take your sarcasm here. Anarchy does not of necessity result in a refusal to be prepared for war. Indeed, many if not a gross majority of even such peaceable tribes as those to which you refer were plenty prepared for war. This is one of the paradoxes of the free and peace loving man: he must be prepared for war at all times because life seems to have a proclivity for the predator-prey relationship. No matter how airy-fairy a nation's life may be, if they want to keep it that way they had best be prepared to murder invaders en-masse, without hesitation, and sans mercy. They are not REQUIRED to do this, of course, but will do so if they do not want to get raked over the coals by another group.
Those who are free and wish to remain that way have a choice to make: prepare for what appears to be the inevitable attacks upon that freedom, or sit about and get sacked.
Similarly, empire nations have fallen to the very same sorts of predation despite having made significant investments in, and preparations for warfare. There are no guarantees in this life. You get your shot and do what you will and can with it. Some do well, others not so much so.
In other words: Anarchy is what got us here
That is not at all true. The naivete, stupidity, fear, and/or apathy that allowed
empire to rise and flourish is what got us here. It is one thing for people to come together
voluntarily to build walled cities to protect themselves from wild predators and perhaps other people. It is a very different thing to be conscripted to do so as a slave or otherwise unwilling participant.
It is this notion that one group of people are
entitled to force the rest to do their bidding that got us "here", as you put it. It is the acceptance of this fiction by the mob that got us here. Were the mob to stand tall before the man and resolutely decline his evil mandates, the authority would be left with its thumbs up its backside, impotent. Sure, they could start killing people, but let us take a good hard look at how well that has worked out, historically speaking, which is to say not very well at all. At best, it buys tyranny a modicum of time, but in the end the readily recognizable tyrant loses his grip. It is the tyrant who cannot be readily pinned down as such that is the great danger. It is when a race of slaves boastfully proclaims its freedom that you know serious trouble is afoot. Welcome to the American mob! "We're the best because we're FREE!" God help us.
the Constitution was meant to keep the strong from victimizing the weak as is always the case in anarchy.
Always? That is a very strong word, not unlike "hate". That aside, consider how well the "Constitution" has succeeded. Not well at all. Our rights were under serious attack by elements even as the document was being drafted. The Constitution is NOTHING in and of itself. A piece of paper (vellum??) with symbols on it that would mean nothing to a stranger from Mars. What counts are the PEOPLE, whether they live together as a constitutional republic, as communists, or in anarchy. It is what people CHOOSE for themselves that matters, and thus far people have chosen shit of an ever creeping intensity of mal-odor ever since the mind rotting concept of
empire came to be accepted. Empire is decay gussied up as glory. It is externally imposed force falsely disguised as unity. It is the greatest blight that has ever scourged the face of this world, and make no mistake about it: empire will be the doom of the human race. But people accept it - nay, DEMAND it. Why? Because it brought us social classes and imposing edifices and works of public art. Because it allowed the average individual with his lazy attitude and his avarice for getting something for nothing to park his brains at the curb of life and be content with letting someone else do all the hard work for him.
Empire, then, is the preferred mode of living for the
inferior man. Dullards, cowards, and thieves thrive in empire because it secures to them the things they are too stupid, incapable, or lazy to get and do for themselves. It allows them abdication of all responsibility for their own lives when all they have to do lay back and let others do for them.
This inferiority swings both ways, mind you. Those doing the "thinking" for the mindless herd are every bit as deplorable as their wards. It is their lust for what they think is true "power", their need of self aggrandizement, the insatiable drive to honor themselves, that holds them in a vise-like grip not unlike that of heroin over the pathetic addict.
Did it fail? No, how can a thing that was NEVER really tried fail? Perhaps we should give it a shot before thinking backwards.
You make my point as per above. People are all that lends reality to such concepts. Remove people and then tell me where may one find "state", or "government", or the "constitution". Without people, none of it exists because the only place they ever COULD exist was in the minds of people... unless someone thinks their dog or pet hamster is a constitutional scholar.
The Constitution CANNOT fail because it is an inanimate thing, the only reality of its own being the paper on which it is written and the inky marks placed upon it. Beyond that, the only reality there is that which we give it. People are the life of such things, not the things themselves.
For the record, I am down with privatized everything except for the courts.
Privatized or otherwise, courts succeed or fail only if they are accountable. Privatization as currently conceived in mainstream, early 21st century USA is insanity because there is not accountability. Not just that, but the mobsters called "government" use their assumed monopoly on "state" force to ensure that certain privatized entities are well insulated from any accountability.
Once again: private v. public is NOT the issue. ACCOUNTABILITY is. Please re-read that last bit 100/day until I tell you to stop.
EDIT: I have read Rothbard, so please elucidate on his theories instead of the usual plagiarism.
Tho whom do you address this?
