Your quote of me is somewhat out of the context of the ideas being discussed.  Surely, it is easy to get garbled up with these various arguments being presented, and from the garbled /fragmented sections attempt to figure out what is being said.

I believe here:  Octaft had presented a hypothetical -asking how much charity BillyjoeAllen would be willing to lock into to pay to cover public interest/benefits etc.  BillyjoeAllen responded that he does NOT want to pay anything into such a system b/c it is his money.

I was merely responding and suggesting that such a world of people NOT contributing (assuming that Billyjoeallen is imagining a world in which everyone is on their own) would result in deterioration of social cooperation and forms of barbarianism.  If there are NO rules to protect, and there are too many people living in dense areas, we would likely devolve into survival of the fittest b/c there is NOT enough resources to go around and the current resource distribution remains extremely skewed.  If we got rid of government, then we would likely experience redistribution through brutal means. 

I am NOT suggesting that human nature is to kill one another.  However, if we immediately got rid of government and received the world that BillyjoeAllen was postulating, we could NOT magically transition from our current world to his utopian state of individualism without some bad things happening to the weak and the poor and the elderly.  More or less, that is the context of my comment.


This is NOT a scenario that I am wishing for, and in fact, I am continuing to suggest that if we are going to transition to some world without government (or even lesser government or more widely distributed government), then we need some kind of plan for that transition, rather than mere bare assertions (without plans) that we need to get rid of government.