When people object to things I say about taking responsibility for themselves rather than relying on government, I see two main avenues of attack. Either they or a loved one is part of the problem (because of a government job), and they want to defend the job or the person who holds the job so that they aren't seen as a bad guy. They won't reconsider this position until circumstances force them to. I'm not in control of their circumstances, so there's no point in wasting much energy there.
The other category of objectors are those who fear what might happen without government.
They are clinging to government, based on fear and "what ifs". Demonstrating both an overactive imagination with regard to dangers and a lack of imagination with regard to solutions.
A problem with government lies with those who refuse to call a spade a spade, and who continue to excuse people with government jobs.
Almost everyone already follows the libertarian principle that they have no right to attack the innocent and no right to steal, vandalize, or trespass on the property of others (i.e., to archate). The problem occurs because they carve out large exceptions for people calling themselves government. Whether it is theft being called "taxation", or property violations called "codes", wrong acts are imagined to gain a veil of legitimacy if done by certain people under certain conditions.
But nothing can change a wrong act into a right one.
If they believe they need a gang of people, paid by theft- they'll call the gang "police" and the theft "taxation"- to protect the people from thieves, they aren't thinking too clearly. There are many more examples besides this obvious one. But to be scared of what freelance thieves might do in the absence of the official thieves is to live in denial.
Thank you for reading.
