I was born in the most violent country in the world... they have freedom like you do not imagine there... People have the right to kill you in cold blood and they can get away with it... and so do you; Politicans, mayors get murdered regularly, Armed gangs roam the streets, My father has always carried a gun with him... he has been in many violent encounters with Charlatans, robbers, drunk assholes, I have witnessed murders in public places filled with people, who don't even bother to stop eating their meal while it is happening, the dead bodies in the streets, my friend getting murdered in front of his wife and son... When I was 11 i got into my first gun fight, stealing the gun of a drunk armed man, while my father faced him in the streets with his own gun, one of my friends in elementary school stopped coming to school after he was shot up by machine gun fire..
I'm sorry for your families hardships. Sounds incredibly awful.
I'm not sure you want that level of freedom
No one does... But don't forget, your country was a republic, like the USA, not a totally lawless territory.
Anarchy has a very specific need if it is to "work": ALL government must be gone in it's geographic area.
Even just the tiniest bit of government existing in a place that is largely lawless will stop the people there from creating their own laws in a truly free marketplace.
No, I can't point to examples because governments have always stopped them from coming about... It's very easy for them to do. However, once you understand the free market completely and more to the point, understand governments completely, you will understand that anarchy is the only way to lasting peace.
The links I provided above hold all the answers you're seeking. I'd recommend starting with these free ebooks:
http://daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdfhttp://www.freedomainradio.com/free/books/FDR_5_PDF_Practical_Anarchy_Audiobook.pdfSorry about that, I agree with you, I though you meant absolute Anarchy where no one knows what is happening at all, but a concensus of the people is what I am looking for, so it would be p2p where everyones personal choice decides what is strengthened or weakened... so I totally believe in what you are talking about.
laissez-faire politics/economics is what I am all about. let people decide what is good for them,
but let the collective wisdom and knowledge of the community be available to everyone as well so that they can decide knowing that the information that they are getting is legitimate and backed by a true believer of that ideal who I am free to accept or reject by my own volition.
I believe in this too.
Quote from The Machinery of Freedom
The central idea of libertarianism is that people should be permitted to run their own lives as they wish. We totally
reject the idea that people must be forcibly protected from themselves. A libertarian society would have no laws
against drugs, gambling, pornography —and no compulsory seat belts in cars. We also reject the idea that people have
an enforceable claim on others, for anything more than being left alone. A libertarian society would have no welfare,
no Social Security system. People who wished to aid others would do so voluntarily through private charity, instead of
using money collected by force from the taxpayers. People who wished to provide for their old age would do so
through private insurance.
People who wish to live in a 'virtuous' society, surrounded by others who share their ideas of virtue, would be free to
set up their own communities and to contract with each other so as to prevent the 'sinful' from buying or renting within
them. Those who wished to live communally could set up their own communes. But nobody would have a right to
force his way of life upon his neighbor.
So far, many who do not call themselves libertarians would agree. The difficulty comes in defining what it means to be
'left alone'. We live in a complicated and interdependent society; each of us is constantly affected by events thousands
of miles away, occurring to people he has never heard of. How, in such a society, can we meaningfully talk about each
person being free to go his own way?
The answer to this question lies in the concept of property rights. If we consider that each person owns his own body
and can acquire ownership of other things by creating them, or by having ownership transferred to him by another
owner, it becomes at least formally possible to define 'being left alone' and its opposite, 'being coerced'. Someone who
forcibly prevents me from using my property as I want, when I am not using it to violate his right to use his property,
is coercing me. A man who prevents me from taking heroin coerces me; a man who prevents me from shooting him
does not.
This leaves open the question of how one acquires ownership of things that are not created or that are not entirely
created, such as land and mineral resources. There is disagreement among libertarians on this question. Fortunately, the
answer has little effect on the character of a libertarian society, at least in this country. Only about 3 percent of all
income in America is rental income. Adding the rental value of owner-occupied housing would bring this figure up to
about 8 percent. Property tax—rental income collected by government—is about another 5 percent. So the total rental
value of all property, land and buildings, adds up to about 13 percent of all income. Most of that is rent on the value of
buildings, which are created by human effort, and thus poses no problem in the definition of property rights; the total
rent on all land, which does pose such a problem, is thus only a tiny fraction of total income. The total raw material
value of all minerals consumed, the other major 'unproduced' resource, is about another 3 percent. There again, much
of that value is the result of human effort, of digging the ore out of the ground. Only the value of the raw resources in
situ may reasonably be regarded as unproduced. So resources whose existence owes nothing to human action bring to
their owners, at the most, perhaps one-twentieth of the national income. The vast majority of income is the result of
human actions. It is created by identifiable groups of people, working together under agreements that specify how their
joint product is to be divided.
The concept of property allows at least a formal definition of 'letting alone' and 'coercing'. That this definition
corresponds to what people usually mean by those words—that a libertarian society would be free—is by no meansThe Machinery of Freedom
file:///C|/...and%20Settings/Rafael/Meus%20documentos/Downloads/Friedman,%20David%20-%20The%20Machinery%20of%20Freedom.html[14/3/2009 16:59:08]
obvious. It is here that libertarians part company with our friends on the left, who agree that everyone should be free to
do as he wishes, but argue that a hungry man is not free and that his right to freedom therefore implies an obligation to
provide food for him, whether one likes it or not.
The book is divided into four sections. In the first, I discuss property institutions, private and public, and how they
have functioned in practice. In the second, I examine a series of individual questions from a libertarian viewpoint. In
the third, I discuss what a future libertarian society might be like and how it could be achieved. The final section
contains new material on a variety of topics added in the second edition.
The purpose of this book is to persuade you that a libertarian society would be both free and attractive, that the
institutions of private property are the machinery of freedom, making it possible, in a complicated and interdependent
world, for each person to pursue his life as he sees fit.
