We will be way better of without a government!

Palandre by default (ie default of absence of government), supports (the free reign, growth, or existence of):

You do understand that Palandre has no answer for such questions?

What a nonsense, and you keep repeating it, despite I have told you a few times that we need no criminal organisation('government') for that!

I have a feeling he means well.
Mark

So you say, and yet you have never offered a workable alternative. You say there is one, but you never offer:

He doesn't pay any attention, whatsoever, to societal dynamics - What any of us say, or alert him untoward.

Some great books are the product of a lifetime of research, reflection, and labored discipline. But other classics are written in a white heat during the moment of discovery, with prose that shines forth like the sun pouring into the window of a time when a new understanding brings in the world into focus for the first time.

''The Market for Liberty'' is that second type of classic, and what a treasure it is. Written by two authors-Morris and Linda Tannehill-just following a period of intense study of the writings of both Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard, it has the pace, energy, and rigor you would expect from an evening's discussion with either of these two giants.

More than that, these authors put pen to paper at precisely the right time in their intellectual development, that period rhapsodic freshness when a great truth had been revealed, and they had to share it with the world. Clearly, the authors fell in love with liberty and the free market, and wrote an engaging, book-length sonnet to these ideas.

This book is very radical in the true sense of that term: it gets to the root of the problem of government and provides a rethinking of the whole organization of society. They start at the beginning with the idea of the individual and his rights, work their way through exchange and the market, expose government as the great enemy of mankind, and then-and here is the great surprise-they offer a dramatic expansion of market logic into areas of security and defense provision.

Their discussion of this controversial topic is integrated into their libertarian theoretical apparatus. It deals with private arbitration agencies in managing with disputes and criminality, the role of insurers in providing profitable incentives for security, and private agencies in their capacity as protection services. It's for this reason that Hoppe calls this book an ''outstanding yet much neglected analysis of the operation of competition.''

I know they're a bunch of salesmen & many of them are crooked - So are many heads of state, heads of industry, commerce, education, science - So are millions of others from all walks of life.


So - What's your FIX for this?

In fact - I have yet to meet a completely honest human being.

But if you really really and very desperately need some, here it is:

You do realise that you are the one who is trying to sell your delusion to others?

And not a single one of us is buying?

you have no argument or evidence whatsoever for your delusions,

So a book is useless. The evidence, to show that you can think for yourself, and are not indoctrinated, can only come from you. Frankly it appears to me that you have been projecting your fears and flaws onto others this whole time.

I am not trying to sell anything.

Have you read the book yet?

First you even haven't read the book. Secondly, I can't put the whole content of a book here, and you know that.

Of course you are - you started a thread entitled "We will be way better off without a government". And every word you have said since backs up that you are trying to sell such.

You do realise this a forum, rather than a book exchange club, right? And on forums people exchange ideas? So in case it wasn't utterly obvious in my last reply (and it should have been) - I'm not interested in reading your book. What I have been interested in, is whether or not you are capable of thinking for yourself. Linking a book doesn't show that you can think for yourself. Unfortunately, at every single turn, you provide evidence (in major avoidance, hypocrisy, and lack of logical argument etc) that you are not able to think for yourself on this topic.

Please, you asked for sources, I gave, you reject.