quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou

The failing point of your logic, is you apparently assume no one of good intentions would bring a shit load of fire power to.

It's simple in my mind what causes peace. It is a balance of mutual threat, and the benefit of mutual cooperation.

If I were to go to your new Kansas, you better believe it would be with a small community of like minded individuals. And like minded would mean packing some serious fire power. That doesn't infer that I'm going to use it, but it does infer that if someone attacks I'd use it.

What stops people from killing you, isn't the government. It is 1. The vast majority of people don't enjoy killing people to begin with. 2. Generally murders lose all social standing once they commit murder. 3. People generally will join together to protect and fight against a common enemy, especially one shooting at them. I doubt they will just sit there and die in waves.

I get your point though some people are evil bastards, though in my view if anything the government slows down the process of removing the evil bastards and actually goes out of their way to protect them. LOL.

This is not even to say government is completely bad, it is to say that to much government is just as bad as none. It would just be less government and small government.

You can live in my town. You'll be safer than in the current scenario. LOL.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord


Oh, no.. I agree that a community of like-minded and practical individuals would start up.  Or would try.

But I'd ask you to consider several things:
-This may be the sort of idea the American founding fathers had.
-Back then, if someone shot someone else, there was a fairly decent chance he'd get shot right back.
-Communities were realitively smaller.  It was easier to know of people and their intentions.
-There weren't gernades.  Or bombs.  Or (for the most part) land mines.  Or sniper rifles.  Or nukes.
-One terrorist with a WMD- whether is be a sample of small pox, a toxic gas, or a nuclear weapon- could kill off such a community.  There would be no recourse.. the community couldn't fight back.  It'd be sick/siezuring/incinerated.

The logic of the good overcoming that bad used to work when numbers were far more important to warfare.

Today, one pilot could kill an army of millions.  Ratios are less important.  Technology and weapontry is.

Then I'd ask you to consider something else.
-The appeal of "New Kansas" was that was that it was free of laws.
-Would the group allow for members killing or stealing from eachother?
-If so, wouldn't it decay into anarcy when other individuals decide to kill or steal back?
-Also if so, would individuals killing the murderer just be exicuting for an unwritten law?
-If not, wouldn't the basis of argument against theft and murder be a law?
-If the community should grow surficiently large, and adopt vechile usage on a large scale...
--Wouldn't it need to make laws against using those vechiles in certain ways?
--Would speed limits be made?
--Would community members want people driving around them at 150 mph while intoxicated and singing a really, really annoying Country song?  (I propose all three be illegal!  :P)
-Wouldn't, in the end, such a society also become lawful?


I will not contest that a society, such as the US, is overly bound by frivilous law.  Actually, I would argue in favor of such a statement.  At the same time, however, I will have to make clear that any society of more than incredily small proportions would have to create laws to govern its citizens.