RE: What a Libertarian Society Would Look Like
Let me start by saying that with most issues I tend to have a libertarian gut-reaction. Generally, I believe if someone wants to do something that does not injure others, they should be free to do it. (However, I think it's a rare Libertarian who would want zero government authority, as you do.)
The problem, when I think about many of these gut reactions, is that often it becomes apparent that an action that seemed to not injure others actually can and does. But we can table that idea for the moment.
The strangest idea in what you wrote, from my perspective, is that somehow a non-governed population will act like a group of friends. Now, look, of course I think we should all treat every individual with respect. But that doesn't mean we're friends. It's not possible to have 350 million friends (despite what Facebook would have you believe). This country was founded on a certain amount of distrust in human nature - and rightly so. There are all kinds of people out there looking to take advantage of the next guy; so to assume everyone is your friend is both naive and possibly immoral.
Like @kayclaricity said in another comment above, I'm certainly open to "less government" on a case by case basis. But to do away with government entirely flies in the face of reason. Force is going to play a part in society in one way or another: it can be the force of law and the state, or it can be the force of the strong against the weak.
In any event - it was an interesting read!
I haven't really stated my opinion, other than I want the smallest government possible, and that the free market could solve problems better. In general, I consider myself a minarchist, though I believe there should be no taxes.
As far as the friends thing goes, I just meant that there is no one person at the party that makes all the decisions (unless it is the property owner), but people generally tend to get along -- even with people they don't know. We don't have to sit around and remind each other it is wrong to start fights, or steal, or sexually abuse each other, for instance. And most people live by those rules.
That is not to say that there are not those who would try to take unfair advantage, but think about it. If some guy wants to trash a party or abuse the people there, which would be most effective in that case -- waiting for the police to arrive and subdue the aggressor or doing it yourselves? It has nothing to do with "assuming everybody is our friend" or not.
Less government can never be achieved on a "case to case" basis, however, as bureaucracies are created to solve "societal problems" overall -- because that's how centralized authorities work: they assume that one solution fits all. And again, I'm not against government; I am against its coercive nature. If you can eliminate the force involved, I'm fine with it (though I might no longer use the same term).
Unfortunately, force can never fully be taken out of the picture. It's the nature of a law: you must do this. If you do not do this, there will be consequences. Those consequences equal force.
Again, that's either going to be you at your party with your brute strength or your gun telling the drunkard to knock it off; or it's going to be a call to your local police. We are all a bunch of conflicting balls of will. Often (hopefully) we can talk and reason things out. But there are times when talking no longer works.
Or, you call security ...
Okay. But security is another form of force. I'm not sure what you're getting at.
Well, the point is that security can be private -- there are other solutions than the usual governmental ones.
Sure. But the other solutions still come down to competing force groups. There is no getting around force as the final arbiter.
The question then becomes: is it in society's benefit to split that force between competing groups? Or do we put that force into a government? Both choices come with certain costs. And clearly the value of each choice can be different depending on the circumstances (you probably don't want your force solely in the hands of Nazi Germany Or communist Soviet Union).
And by the way, this discussion seems to be restricted to clear-cut criminal actions - like theft or murder. But really, these are probably a minority of the cases. The thing is, even people with the best intentions can and will have conflicting perspectives and values. Many times these conflicts can be resolved through conversation; but many times they cannot. That's why we have civil courts, etc. While we may not think of small claims court as a place of violence and force, really, it is. Two people disagree. The court makes a decision. And the loser needs to pay up. Or else.
I accept your point about force. I have never said anything against it. I do of course think force should be used only in self-defense or in defense of the weak, but I do not believe there will ever be a world in which violence and aggression are absent. So let's agree to agree on this point, ok? ;)
Balance of power is always preferable to centralized power (which can be abused much more easily and more effectively, i.e. violently), in my view. Also, we believe in the Non-Aggression Principle (the NAP), which means we are much more inclined to have a constitutional republic based on Austrian principles and liberty than we are to accept communism or fascism.
Finally, I agree about your disputes, but I do not agree that government courts are the only or the best solution to such problems. I believe Scotland (or Ireland?) had a private arbitrator system that worked effectively for something like half a millennium. Basically, both parties in a dispute would agree on hiring one arbitrator (it was a business, with competition amongst them to keep prices down, and to ensure the two parties would try to find an arbitrator they both respected). At the end of the day, they had to both accept the arbitrator's decision.
I think we agree on a lot more than we disagree. :) Thanks for the thoughtful discussion!
What is government? Are people in government more likely to make things worst or better? Who brings us more control and gives us more of what we want, the market, the monopoly?
The market, of course.