Quote from: username18333 on January 03, 2015, 03:54:06 AM

Quote from: BADecker on January 03, 2015, 03:46:52 AM

. . .

Among these farmers are the 5% that are a little prone to laziness and fraud on their neighbors in whatever ways they can get away with. A few of these are downright thieves. The thieves literally break into their neighbor's barns and steal produce. They rustle cattle and sheep, animals that the owners have not set aside for community purposes; after all, don't we get to keep a little of what we work for for ourselves without giving all of it over to community?

Some of the thieves get killed breaking and entering. They become afraid. So they form a loose government, a gang, for mutual protection. The good folk form a government to protect themselves from the gang.

. . .

Quote from: Budhism?

Resignation is a form of enlightenment.

Quote from: Jesus?

Never resist an evil person; instead, give him your coat.

Within the context of this small, agricultural town, the farmers of the town would farm a singular, massive, highly-efficient farm (or, perhaps, for redundancy, two large farms). As well, thieves do not exist without ownership to condemn them, and would merely be some people that came to utilize the resources of the farm.

Now, one may wonder why it is that the farmers would not ban together to augment their own wealth via ownership and the subsequent implementation of money and state. That humanity has already been there and done that should affirm to them that such a path is ill-advised and prevent its wholesale (and, thus, successful) pursuit, for, ultimately, ownership may only be enforced to ones benefit if others are willing to enforce it (something that becomes more difficult as fewer retain ownership [that is, remain owners]). (In the instance one enforces ownership oneself, one forgoes an equal measure of production. [The same is true of the enforcement of money to a greater degree and of the enforcement of state to a yet greater one.])

Additionally, not all government constitutes non-optional hierarchy. For example, Great Empire of Earth is an imperial anarchist despotism, which means that there is one endowed with all powers of government (in this case, by the G.E. Emperor [G.E. doesnt have a constitution]) wherewith one may not comply (i.e., compliance with the Despot is optional). The optional-ness of compliance with the government is not codified in law, for it is the wish of the G.E. Emperor that it would always be implied (and, therefore, that one could not transgress it for a lack of positive limitations thereupon).

Small, beneficial govenments often become large harmful monsters.

"Love your enemies." Where is the point that we should love our friends? When the gang of thieves steals from us, are they not harming those that we love more than our enemies... the people who are our friends and families? Take a look at King David. He was call a man after God's own heart, two places in the Old Testament; and the only person to be so called. Yet, to look at his actions, he seemed to be one of the most blood thirsty people ever. Yet, when you look in detail at him, you see that he did everything honorably to the extreme.

"Love your enemies" doesn't mean love them more than your family and friends. Why do you people constantly try to make God and His Word look bad?