Pat,

I am not a political science expert, but it seems to me that you are
simply ignoring the fact that the American state is a continuation
of the America created when the colonies formed the union. A
constitution was adopted, which divided power between the federal
government and the states. Certain rights referred to as
inalienable rights were recognized in the Constitution for special
protection. A Bill of Rights was incorporated into the Constitution
by amendments. The people through their representatives agreed to
those terms of government. You seem to believe that subsequent
generations are not bound by the actions taken by their ancestors.
For example,you seem to be saying that if the legislature passed a
law to curtail pollution of water ways before you were born, then
after you were born if you thought dumping waste products into the
rivers was acceptable, you should not be bound by the pollution law
because you did not have the opportunity to participate in the
making of the law. Is that correct?

If you are my neighbor and you commit a crime, I can report the
matter to the police and ask them to take proper action against
you. Of course, no one can force you to move from your home because
you have committed a crime. Unless you may have committed some crime
which would require an offender to move from his home because of
special circumstances. E.g. adults who commit sexual offenses
against minors. I am not sure of the details of those repercussions
but I think such offenders are not allowed to live in proximity to
secondary schools, for example.

Some thinkers believe that without government life for people
becomes nasty and brutish. Thugs intimidate people and make their
lives miserable. The state protects law-abiding people from having
to deal with such miscreants. That is one reason people form
governments.

Some American political philosophers believe the "less government is
better government". [I'm not sure that is a correct quote.] Those
thinkers worry about democratically elected governments becoming
dictatorships. You would probably agree with that point of view.
Those philosophers prefer to have fewer laws so people retain more
freedom and liberty whereas other people favor laws that bear on
more and more aspects of people's lives. What they can eat, drink,
etc., what they can say and write (although almost everybody
believes that there should be some limitations on what is
called "free speech").

Do you know if there is any place in the world where anarchy is
practiced? I doubt there is such a place. Because the idea is
untenable. Of course, people can appreciate the spirit of anarchy,
which is laissez faire. But the fact is that people want an orderly
society, at least in the public sphere. As for goes on in the
private sphere, people argue about. Some people want more
prohibitions, others argue for none, or almost none.

Let's you and I and the participants in this discussion group
decided to go to an uninhabitated island to live for an extended
period of time. Let's agree that no country or state had any
jurisdiction over the island. Wouldn't we have to adopt some rules
or laws to govern how we lived and to provide a method for us to
settle dispute and conflicts that we probably would have? What
would you say to the group in support of "anarachy"?




>
> If you are upset by actions of your neighbor that don't affect
you, like his
> earning money or using drugs, you should move. You have no right
to force
> him to move. Getting together with a group of people who, like
you, have
> tyrannical tendencies doesn't give you this right. Voting on
leaders doesn't
> give you this right. Fact is, you do not have this right. Most
of us, by what
> appears to be human nature, immediately understand that rape,
theft, and
> murder are wrong. These are actions states engage in, so there
seems to be no
> clear reason why human nature requires a state.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>