A response to an idiot

"The right to use (unprovoked) force/coersion/violence to acieve what you want is moraly wrong and something humans don't naturaly do."




Yes, force/coercion/violence are morally wrong. Nobody, however, ever makes the claim that it is something humans do not naturally do. It is merely our postulation that a state-less system will deal with these problems more effectively, and provide more disincentives to commit these crimes.

Even without bringing up private security forces (which would undoubtedly be more efficient in the market (in that they wouldn't be wasting their time with drugs/gambling/prosititution and the like)), I can use the following basic example:

You are a criminal. What is going to provide a larger disincentive to your committing a violent act? The small chance that you may be apprehended by agents of the state and convicted in states courts or the immediate threat of being shot by an armed victim?

Now, I am not saying that all of AC would be wild west shootouts, I am just saying that self-defense is FAR more efficient than the alternatives when violence is imminent. Smaller crimes like theft could be handled by private detectives and private arbitrators. Supply would actually meet demand in this respect (modern bureaucratic courts are constantly backed up).