Comment: I don't know what you missed in my argument

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: I've never understood (see in situ)

I don't know what you missed in my argument

I'm arguing why anarchy cannot work, using the near-anarchy that the US was under with the Articles of Confederation as an example.

Under the Articles of Confederation, the United States was under near-anarchy. Because Congress couldn't tax, or enforce ANY law, and had no power to get aid from the states, Washington and his men suffered horribly as they fought for liberty, all while their countrymen wouldn't lift a finger to help them, nor would they sell to them (in fact, they gladly sold to the British soldiers). They starved unnecessarily, and froze to death without proper equipment, all because their fellow citizens refused to voluntarily help them. Virginia people wouldn't voluntarily travel across several states to fight the British in Rhode Island. Afterwards, one state would refuse to recognize another states' coinage, and they argued about who had to the right to navigate the rivers and lakes. They were breaking up into little gangs. People who were once good neighbors turned on each other. If another nation had decided then to attack and start claiming bits and pieces of the US for themselves, they would not have been able to fend them off.

Mind you, these were people who had a lot in common. Compared to today, the US back then was not very diverse. If near-anarchy almost allowed the British to win the war, and then afterwards nearly broke the states apart and left them vulnerable to other attacks and invasions from other nations, how would true anarchy prove better? It was the near ANARCHY that prompted the soldiers to long for a benevolent tyrant! The one extreme prompted the desires for the opposite extreme!

People can and will fight to protect their homes, after their tolerance level has been exceeded. Outside of their homes, however, it's a gamble as to whether they'd care. As we can already tell, a lot of people don't actually care about what happens outside of their immediate lives. That's why they shrug off such atrocities as the NDAA (how many of them have a friend who has mysteriously disappeared lately?), the Federal Reserve counterfeiting money (they are still eating, still getting water, can still buy clothes and go to the movies and pay rent and play on their expensive toys), the TSA ("meh, what's another scanner? It just proves that I'm innocent." And the more invasive searches are few enough that most people can go through the airport without seeing an incident), and so on.

"Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." -- Thomas Paine