Comment: Without government, Joe's

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: You're stating the obvious (see in situ)

Without government, Joe's

Without government, Joe's wife and kids would have the recourse of a rifle, as well as the support of the local community.

Other than that, you are correct. This is life, there are no guarantees. I've no doubt though that Famer Joe and his family would be more likely to succeed without government intrusion, than the certainty of government intrusion. The comparison that you present, that someone MAY kill Joe and steal his herd...government DOES and HAS shut him down. Had the government not shut "Joe" down, he may have, and likely would have, lived his entire life without seeing such aggression. His children would most likely have inherited the farm and lived the same life. Comparing the likelihood of a non governmental criminal attack on Joe, and a direct governmental criminal attack on Joe, the criminal attack from government is HIGHLY likely.

Why do you focus on the UNLIKELY negative aspects of a market absent of government intervention?

The native Americans secured rights under an anarchical society, up until the US government decided to eliminate them. The majority of the tribes even traded, FREELY, with the settlers, until they were pushed out of their land.

----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence