Well, that's a very poor response. You could've asked why I think so, the same way I did to your initial statement. I'm disappointed.
Ethics, economics, morals and politics cannot be discussed with empirical analysis. That is wrong and dangerous. That's not how one comes up with an argument about how the world ought to work. 'Reason' has to be employed for it.
But then, you are free to believe what you believe as long as you leave me and my property alone. Good day! 👋
You equate my reply and
yours while ignoring the fact that we had an entire discussion in between... Not that I’m surprised- you seem incapable of understanding that you don’t just win an argument with theory- you have to actually provide examples that connect it to reality, and it’s clear you don’t have one.
If we’re just throwing out theories, how about this one: India is broken because Indian people are broken, and no system will fix that?
I do have examples which I won't give because of reasons I just laid out.
And also because I am not interested in 'winning' this argument. There is no such thing.
I am using this exchange to articulate my ideas and make it better. You're providing a service to me with your time and energy free of cost. So thanks for that. Appreciate it.
Using Reason is how people evolve from being barbarians to civilized human beings.
If people relied on empirical analysis to assess whether slavery was good or bad, whether theft was good or bad, whether war was good or bad, whether invasions were good are bad, the world would be a more horrible, uncivilized place than it already is thanks to people who do that right now.
Empiricism is the death of ethics and morality.
This conversation at its heart is about what the ideal way of defending one's person and property is. It's an ethical argument about what is right and wrong in the realm of politics, which is essentially concerned with the ethics of violence.
We both agree that it is moral, righteous and just to defend, if need be with the use of violence, one's person and property against an aggressor.
To arrive at this, we do not use empirical evidence. We use 'theoretical' and 'logical' reasoning about what is right and wrong.
If a person or a group of people around us suddenly call themselves the government and steals from someone with the claim that he will be protected in the future, that is wrong. It would indeed be organised crime. Applying this same reasoning to the governments that already exist today is simply being consistent.
So governments of today are essentially organised criminals if you and I agree on the principle of self-ownership and private property.
Getting them out of humanity's social functioning, at whatever point in the future, gradually or preferably as fast as possible, is a pretty good ideal to have.
Regarding your theory about India: It's not just India. It's like that everywhere. Nobody can 'fix' anybody. Statists like you have this fantasy of thinking that people can somehow be shaped according to your preferences. Well, they can't be.
Besides, I don't want to 'fix' other people. I want to get the governments and other forms of organised aggression out of their lives, businesses, properties and families.
Ok so you’re saying morality can only be achieved where there is no group against the individual , with the group being governments, organised crime or some version of private arbitration. No one should be above to use either the power of physical force or coercion via a group to compel an individual to act in a certain way. But you’re still not providing a safeguard if any single individual chooses not to respect these values. And then you say that violence is justified if someone breaches them, but who enforces that? You can say ‘the individual’, but what about for people that are unable or unwilling to enforce that themselves? What about people who want to pay others to do it (which is likely what would happen and what essentially the government is). And who determines how much property theft justifies what level of violence? If in this world if someone steals my pen, can I kill them? Governments also prescribe a single set of rules which everyone can learn.
It’s all well and good if you want to say that in an ideal world, or in purely abstract moral terms things would be best if there was no need for a single set of rules enforced by a single central authority, but who cares? You’re basically saying that governments are immoral because they impose force on individuals, but refuse to accept that many individuals don’t respect others in the first place. The collective is the least bad solution to the failings of many individuals.
This isn’t a tension between the individual and the collective but between voluntary cooperation and coercive monopolies.
You assume legal enforcement requires a centralized authority, but justice can be maintained through competing private defense agencies and arbitration, which are accountable to customers, not rulers.
You conflate voluntary collectives with governments, ignoring that states hold a monopoly on force, while private legal systems allow choice and accountability.
In a state system, you cannot opt out. You are stuck, even if the state doesn't treat you properly and aggresses against you and your property unjustly.
A private legal order - guided by the principle of non-aggression, property rights, due process, proportionality, and voluntary association would uphold justice more effectively than coercive monopolies, which lack the incentive to do so.
The claim that government is the 'least bad' solution assumes coercion prevents societal breakdown, yet states are the greatest sources of war, violence, and systemic exploitation. Government doesn’t solve human failings. It amplifies them by institutionalizing aggression.
It's essential to strive toward a more civilized society by rejecting coercion in favor of voluntary cooperation.
Ideally, it happens as soon as possible.
But it has to happen at some point in the future because I don't think humanity will last long if we keep relying on governments as coercive monopolies to maintain a social order. They are growing bigger all the time and becoming ever more destructive. The last century was a huge warning sign. Doesn't seem like they've become any better this century.
Most people would choose the state though. Just because it’s not voluntary or some people would opt out if they could doesn’t make it morally wrong. The very fact that you can’t opt out is one of it’s main strengths- you still haven’t said what would happen in an absence if the state, or ‘private law’ or ‘voluntary law etc’ if people just opt out of that.
Competing private defense contractors- so basically mafia or gangs. How doesn’t that just end up with justice for the rich and shakedowns for the poor.
‘Governments are the greatest source of war, violence etc’. The problem with this is you’re not comparing it to the alternative. You assume that if we take governments away the wars will go too. Yet countries with weak governments like Mexico or with rebels like in the Mid east or Africa actually have the highest per capita murder rates of anywhere. And countries with the highest levels of government intervention like Scandinavia or East Asia have the lowest.
And this century has been far safer so far than the first 25 years of the 20th century. So far approx 1 million people have died in wars this century vs 15 million in ww1. Not considering far lower crime and murder rates globally either…
And that’s when the global pop was 2bn.
And you can also look at net migration between high and low government intervention countries to see how people actually feel.
Net migration was 300k people from India in 2024 to Australia, with govt spending to GDP at 36% in Australia and 16% in India
You haven't refuted any of my points about the principles of non-aggression, voluntary association, self-ownership and property rights.
I've added enough substance to my argument and laid out systematically where I'm coming from by reasoning from first principles about what is right and wrong when it comes to the ethics of violence.
You're just arguing over and over again that a 'government is needed'.
I am not really sure what your underlying moral and ethical principles are and for what end you want governments to exist.
Because they’re the best way to actually realise the principles you care about…
In your comparative analysis, you make no normative claims about what a government should do or what the laws should be.
You plainly say 'strong governments' vs 'weak governments' and 'more intervention' and 'less intervention' leading to better or worse outcomes. You seem to be so obsessed with precise details yet you give none for your own claims.
1. Intervening for what?
2. What intervention are you talking about?
3. What laws are we discussing and why can't the same law enforcement be provided by a private legal system?
4. What exactly do you want for yourself from a government?
5. What is the ethical and moral principle that you are basing your arguments on?
Their existence is a violation of the principles I care about.
You haven't refuted that at all.
What principles do you care about?
Maybe they are different from mine and that's why we don't seem to agree at all.
And it is clear to me that you're just arguing based on whatever points suit your narrative and idea about how governments ought to be.
Well, that seems very wishful and 'theoretical' to me.
It's not the reality and never has been. Governments can only exist by stealing and coercing. Try not paying taxes to your government for not providing you adequate services and see what happens. And try offering the same service to people around you in a peaceful manner and see what happens.
That alone is an invalidation of your entire argument that governments are needed to realise the principles I care about. But you seem persistent and dodge this fundamental flaw. You have failed to convince me of the validity of your position.
Maybe you are living in a different reality than mine with your baseless fantasies about a moral government that is benevolent, ethical and beloved.
But that's not how governments work in practice.
They never have, never do and never will.
At this point you should probably just stop talking. You’re coming across as stupid
You're one of those the types of people I came to Nostr to avoid. The type who keeps belittling, insulting, cannot stop getting personal. I've been careful to avoid people like you, but alas.
Try keeping an open mind and reading the people I suggested and their books.
Let's just agree to disagree and move on like I suggested before.
You’re not actually debating, just repeating the same ideology like a broken record. I gave you real-world examples, but you ignored them because they don’t fit your fantasy. If you ever decide to engage with reality instead of hiding behind theory, let me know. Until then, keep pretending you’re above it all.
I don't know why you're so miserable and angry 😂😂😂
Chill out a little bit will you?
The side of governments is not a very good side to be on man. I don't know what's gotten into you or what propaganda you've consumed.
I live in a country that used statistics to plan and heavily intervene into the economy for 44 years from 1947-1991. Then the government liberalised in 1991 imperfectly based on ideas from economic schools that rely on statistics and models like you do.
You cannot begin to comprehend what govt intervention does to society because the laws that you have in your country is built based on the ideas, ethics and morals I am repeating like a broken record.
Read all my replies to your posts. I have asked you questions you have not responded to. Maybe your client isn't showing those notifications so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
But I'll refute your claims anyway:
The argument that governments are necessary for peace, order, and justice is deeply flawed.
History shows that states are responsible for the greatest violations of human rights, including war, genocide, taxation, and mass surveillance. Furthermore, voluntary societies and private law systems have existed and functioned without a centralized state.
1. The claim that weak governments cause violence ignores the fact that governments have been the most violent entities in history:
20th Century Wars & Genocides (Government-led):
World War I: ~15 million deaths
World War II: ~70–85 million deaths
Mao’s Great Leap Forward: ~30–45 million deaths
Stalin’s Purges and Famines: ~20 million deaths
Pol Pot’s Cambodia: ~2 million deaths
Rwandan Genocide: ~800,000 deaths
Korean and Vietnam Wars: Hundreds of thousands of deaths
21st century war and genocides:
Second Congo War (1998–2003): 5.4 million deaths
Iraq War (2003–2011): 100,000+ civilian deaths
Syrian Civil War (2011–present): 500,000+ deaths
War in Afghanistan (2001–2021): 176,000+ deaths
Ukraine Conflict (2022–present): 1.7 million+ deaths
Darfur Genocide (2003–present): 300,000 deaths
Rohingya Crisis (2016–present): Thousands killed, 700,000+ displaced
Uyghur Persecution (2014–present): 1 million+ detained
Gaza Conflict (2023–2025): 24,100+ deaths
Even excluding war, governments have directly caused tens of millions of deaths through state-led famines, repression, and democide (mass murder by the state). Heard of socialism? Compare this to societies where localized conflicts never reach such devastating scales.
2. The False Comparison: Weak States vs. Strong States
The argument assumes that without government, society would resemble places like Mexico (cartel violence) or African war zones. But these are not examples of voluntary law societies—they are power vacuums left by failed states. They are government-caused break downs of law and order.
A better comparison would be:
Medieval Iceland - A private law society that operated peacefully for centuries.
Pre-colonial Ireland of Brehons - A decentralized system of law and restitution without a central state.
Somali Xeer Law - A voluntary arbitration system that persisted for centuries.
When private institutions enforce law, order emerges voluntarily and spontaneously, not through coercion.
2. 'Most People Would Choose the State'
The claim that most people “choose” the state is false because:
People do not actually choose governments—they are born into them and have no opt-out option.
Coercion does not equal consent. People comply with the state because it violently suppresses alternatives.
Appeal to popularity is a fallacy—historically, most people who lived under monarchy, serfdom, and state religion did not choose them.
If governments were truly voluntary, taxation would be optional, and people could freely choose their legal and defense systems. The state refuses to allow this competition because it cannot survive without coercion.
3. 'Not Being Able to Opt Out Is a Strength'
The idea that the state’s monopoly on law and violence is a strength is an open endorsement of tyranny:
By this logic, slavery, forced military conscription, and totalitarian regimes would also be 'strong' because people cannot opt out.
Strength does not equal morality - the mafia and North Korea are 'strong' in their ability to suppress dissent, but that does not justify their existence.
A voluntary society allows individuals to choose their legal systems. If the state were truly necessary, people would voluntarily fund and support it rather than being forced to through taxation and conscription.
4. What Happens When People Opt Out of Private Law?
The argument assumes that opting out of a private law system leads to chaos. This is false because:
Private law functions through contractual agreements - if someone refuses to participate, they simply lose access to protection, legal recognition, and arbitration.
Today, private arbitration, security, and dispute resolution already exist, even under state monopolies. Removing the state would only strengthen them through market competition.
Example: Insurance companies, private courts, and security firms already enforce rules today. Just like refusing to pay for health insurance means losing coverage, refusing to engage in private law means losing protection and legal recognition.
A system based on voluntary agreements and incentives is far more stable than one based on coercion.
5. 'Competing Defense Agencies Would Be Gangs or Mafias'
A common myth is that in a voluntary society, private protection agencies would act like criminal gangs. But this ignores how competition and market incentives prevent this behavior:
The mafia thrives due to state prohibition and black markets, not because voluntary law creates crime.
In contrast, private companies today compete in arbitration, private security, and enforcement without degenerating into war.
Governments themselves are the biggest organized crime syndicates, engaging in:
Taxation (legalized theft)
Conscription (legalized kidnapping)
War (legalized mass murder)
If Apple and Microsoft settle disputes through courts rather than violence, why would competing private defense agencies act differently?
A private security firm that engaged in shakedowns would lose customers and be replaced—unlike the state, which has no competition and no accountability.
6. 'Wouldn’t the Rich Buy Justice?'
The idea that only the wealthy would get justice in a private system ignores that the rich already manipulate state-run justice systems:
Governments bail out banks while letting small businesses fail.
Politicians are immune to laws that apply to everyone else.
Corporate lobbying and crony capitalism ensure that justice is bought by the highest bidder.
Under private law, justice providers compete. If a private law firm became known for favoritism, customers would switch to a more impartial provide - something impossible under a state monopoly.
Today, many businesses prefer private arbitration over government courts because it is faster, cheaper, and fairer. Private law ensures justice through competition, not coercion.
7. Migration doesn’t prove bigger government is better
People migrate for economic opportunity, not for big government.
India has lower government spending than Australia, but GDP per capita is far lower - this explains migration, not the size of government.
If large government spending attracted migrants, people would move to Venezuela or Zimbabwe instead of places with free markets like Singapore and Hong Kong.
People move to more free countries with better property rights and freer markets, not just those with high state intervention.
1. Governments are the largest sources of war and violence, not private actors.
2. People do not 'choose' the state—it is imposed on them.
3. Coercion is not a strength—voluntary law systems function through incentives, not force.
4. Private law operates through contracts—opting out does not mean chaos.
5. Competing defense agencies would act like businesses, not gangs.
6. The rich already manipulate state justice—competition ensures fairness.
7. People migrate for economic opportunity, not bigger government.
Non-aggression, voluntary association, property rights, and self-ownership are best realized in a system where law and defense are provided through voluntary means, not through a coercive monopoly.
The state is not the solution - it is the greatest violator of these principles.
Another book recommendation in addition to For a New Liberty by Rothbard which recommended earlier:
Ethics of Liberty by the same person.
But sir, wait. I'm not done yet!
Here's what my situation in India is.
Tell me, good sir. Why should I ever think that a government is necessary for anything at all?
So when are you moving to Somalia?
Stop trolling me 😂😂😂
In all seriousness, I like my friends, family, culture, circumstances and a lot of other things pertaining to where I live. I don't plan on moving anywhere.
Haha. You’re like the Craig Wright of libertarians
I don't know what made you come to that conclusion. If you can explain why, that would be nice.
But I want to note that I still haven't gotten personal throughout this exchange and stuck to refuting your opinions and ideas. It would be a lot more decent and civilised of you to do the same. Be better.
You've successfully baited me into having a useless discussion by being a top-tier troll who just disagrees for the sake of it. I'll give you that. I see that you've been doing it with other people as well. I don't know what kick you get out of it.
I don't know what your situation is, but I am happy where I live. One doesn't need to want to abandon everything he loves to prove a point or just because he doesn't like the government. It's not wrong to want my circumstances to be better. And removing the government from my life will help me, those around me and the society I live in as a whole. You have shown to be incapable of understanding this. Stop trolling people and try to understand where they are coming from.
This has been a truly unpleasant exchange, good sir. I hope I never have the displeasure of meeting you IRL.
Ahh I think I get it now. You are likely referring to my use of an LLM to assist me with responding to you. I do that often to save time and energy and to not have to repeat the same thing over and over again. Especially with people like you who make repetitive arguments I've heard and read before many times and refuse to read the books or people I suggested.
Feel free to use an LLM to refute my points and arguments. I don't mind. Maybe I might learn something that I've missed.
I am repeating this again: If you want to know where I'm coming from, check out the works of Hoppe, Mises and Rothbard directly and read them.
As of now, I do not have new insights about politics and economics that haven't already been brilliantly articulated by them and people like them systematically and rigorously. So reading them will be more helpful to you than arguing with a random stranger online.
More recommendations including what I've already suggested:
•Human action by Mises
•Ethics of liberty by Rothbard
•Man, economy and state with power and markets by Rothbard
•Ethics and economics of private property by Hoppe
•A theory of socialism and capitalism by Hoppe
•Theory and History by Mises
•Theory of money and credit by Mises
•Anatomy of the State by Rothbard
•For a new liberty by Rothbard
•Egalitarianism as a revolt against nature by Rothbard
•Left and Right: the prospects for liberty by Rothbard
•What has government done to our money by Rothbard
•Liberalism by Mises
•Socialism by Mises
•Planning for Freedom by Mises
•Bureaucracy by Mises
•Interventionism by Mises
•Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth by Mises
You can't just bring up migration statistics from one country to another to make a case for government. It's not relevant here.
Do you know or can know what each of those people are migrating for? You don't and you can't. Because it can't be known even if you do surveys.
Even if you do, it is not a valid backing for the argument that you need a government to protect people and their property. Because the government itself funds itself by first stealing and coercing people and violating the very principle it claims to exist for.
The problem with it is simple:
How to get from where we are right now to a world where governments and criminals don't plunder and murder people en masse?
The answer is to allow people to acquire the tools and technologies to protect themselves and their property.
And articulate a set of laws and ethics in the political sphere that applies to both governments and common thieves, gangsters and murderers.
Civilian murder by any government in the name of war is simply unacceptable, no matter what numbers and statistics we are talking about. Same goes for non-government criminals.
Simply saying 'government needed' is not adequate. It lacks depth.
'Most people' opting to do something does not make it right. And your claim that 'most people' would opt for a state seems baseless.
The laws I mentioned that would underlie the system, libertarian law, is equally beneficial for the poor as it is for the rich because they do not differentiate between the two.
Your argument would be stronger or more convincing if you refute the contents of the law by actually reading what it is than making blanket statements with negative connotations like 'mafia' and 'gangs' over and over again.
