Based on all of human history. Our natural state was anarchy, and in every single case it has ended in a government of varying degrees of size and rigidity.
Tell me, if the quote about limited government always failing to a "rightful master" is true, then what about anarchy stops that from happening? A community organizes under a charismatic individual or body of such individuals, and it will grow. That is far more inevitable than the idea that the laws limiting government will always be violated and discarded.
Our natural state was the opposite of anarchy. "Rulers" by force and might have conquered throughout history, and that has rarely if ever changed.
Anarchy would put the power of legitimized violence into the hands of people, and disperse power among many, forming a decentralized collection of individuals and groups without dictator. This has never been accomplished, so there is no historical precedent for examination. What would follow from it is pure speculation. But my speculation is that balances of power could be maintained between many decentralized groups, in the same way that, on an open free market, many different firms compete peacefully for patronage.
Whether that balance could be maintained, and growth from various sides thus checked, is an open question. But it's worth pointing out that were it to topple, and a new dictator emerge, we would only be right here, where we're starting from -- under the bootheels of the State. The worst that could happen is where we are now (or where States have taken us in the past 100 years).
Based on all of human history. Our natural state was anarchy, and in every single case it has ended in a government of varying degrees of size and rigidity.
Tell me, if the quote about limited government always failing to a "rightful master" is true, then what about anarchy stops that from happening? A community organizes under a charismatic individual or body of such individuals, and it will grow. That is far more inevitable than the idea that the laws limiting government will always be violated and discarded.
Our natural state was the opposite of anarchy. "Rulers" by force and might have conquered throughout history, and that has rarely if ever changed.
Anarchy would put the power of legitimized violence into the hands of people, and disperse power among many, forming a decentralized collection of individuals and groups without dictator. This has never been accomplished, so there is no historical precedent for examination. What would follow from it is pure speculation. But my speculation is that balances of power could be maintained between many decentralized groups, in the same way that, on an open free market, many different firms compete peacefully for patronage.
Whether that balance could be maintained, and growth from various sides thus checked, is an open question. But it's worth pointing out that were it to topple, and a new dictator emerge, we would only be right here, where we're starting from -- under the bootheels of the State. The worst that could happen is where we are now (or where States have taken us in the past 100 years).