Comment: seth is entirely correct

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: I'll bite Jan, (see in situ)

seth is entirely correct

that those three minutes prior to gangs forming, anarchism would be relatively peaceful.

Of course, just calling the gangs and warlords "government" does not absolve anarchy of responsibility for allow them to emerge.

Since gangs and warlords are a main part of jan's arguments, it is really not answering his arguments to just call them "government" and so fob off responsibility for them.

It's not a discussion about whether anarchism would be great for those three minutes. It's a debate about whether there could lasting, stable order without governments. If gangs and warlords emerge under anarchism, the answer is no. Yes, you can call these new gangs "really bad governments." Fine, we agree.

Not the point. The point is anarchism has no way to prevent really bad governments from rushing into the vacuum left by destroying somewhat bad government.

The reason there is no 'good government' is because there are no good people. People aren't 'good' in the way we want them to be. We are bad, and the worse we are, the more likely we are to get power.

That's why it takes so much more vigilance and effort from good people who are unafraid of fighting, to have even a short period of semi-good government,

That's why liberty always emerges from insecurity and danger, like the early American environment, or other tough environments where people are more willing to set aside security to maintain their power over themselves and property (their freedom).

Anarchy could either produce tyranny in short order, if the existing millions of willing subjects and security-hungry people could be property farmed by the new warlords, or else there'd be a massive population drop, and the remaining survivors might well be more libertarian and freedom loving in their character.