I'm not sure if it was your intention, but I'm getting the sense that you're saying that the only people who don't believe the state has a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence are terrorists.

__________________
No man is an island...
Each man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in Mankind.
And therefore, never send to know
For whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.
—John Donne

No, but close - it is usually the people who don't believe that the state has a monopoly on violence are called "terrorists" by the state.

Example: Even though Israelis have terrorized Palestinians, killed thousands of civilians, stolen land, bulldozed homes with residents in them and built settlements on them they are not called terrorists. Only those who resist this oppression are.

__________________
"To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
~Thomas Jefferson

"There is Still No Such Thing As a Fair Tax"

Not unlike Iraqis resisting the puppet Iraq government complete with its killing squads and US sponsor? Or the Sunni whom the US military is arming to supposedly fight 'Al Qaeda', not resist Shia dominance to pacify the Sauds?

Im reading Milton Friedman right now and he is undeniably for free markets, extremely so.

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

Early Friedman, late '60s or later?

Early. Im reading capitalism and freedom. I think he wrote it in 62.

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

I thought this book would be really good. And there are a few parts that are good. But a large part of it is things like, "Well, this should be a free market, but becase of x, y, and z, government should intervene."

__________________
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."
-Thomas Jefferson in his first inauguration address

Homeland Security is big business. It has already been privatized:

AlterNet: The Bushites Have Outsourced Our Government to Their Pals

__________________
"To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
~Thomas Jefferson

"There is Still No Such Thing As a Fair Tax"

outsourcing =/= privatizing

The difference is that a governement would force the law on companies while they would not do it on themselves and thats what makes privatized security so dangerous.

No, it has not been privitized in the sense that I am speaking of.

The government is still giving the corporations money. With out government, the corporations get no money. Again, it is because of government that we have a situation like we have now.

How is this a failure of the free market, I'm guessing that is your point here.

__________________
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."
-Thomas Jefferson in his first inauguration address

No, it has not been privitized in the sense that I am speaking of.

The government is still giving the corporations money. With out government, the corporations get no money. Again, it is because of government that we have a situation like we have now.

How is this a failure of the free market, I'm guessing that is your point here.

__________________
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."
-Thomas Jefferson in his first inauguration address

Nice double-post.

If corporations didn't receive government money they wouldn't have enough money to be defense agencies. Basically, we'd have many really small and uncohesive militaries. This might work if everyone in the world did it, but that would never happen. If we did it, a large, organized/united, national military would move in and crush us. Ever heard the saying "United we stand, divided we fall"? It;s applicable in more situations than you think. We can compare this to nuclear deterrance. Countries refrain from nuking us because they know we have nukes (and a lot of them) as well and would fire back. Countries refrain from invading us because we have the second largest and probably the most powerful military in the world. If we did not have nukes, we would probably be nuked. If we didn't have a powerful army, we'd be crushed. Either way we'd be screwed unless every country got rid of their army or nukes, which will never happen.

__________________

Which explains why every nation that does not have nukes has been nuked.

America loves playing cop. Everyone knows that if someone nuked one of these nations we'd be on them like a fat kid on cake. My question is, don't you think America would be attacked if we had no strong army? The answer is yes. Plus, that was just my crappy analogy. The two situations aren't exactly the same by any means.

__________________

I think that if America had no strong army, our foreign policy would have played out differently giving nobody a good reason to attack us in the first place. You can't simply remove a major variable and only look at how that variable affected one aspect of something.