Lebanon does indeed have a monopoly government. And Hezbollah as a political party is a legitimate part of that government. It's existence doesn't mean theres not a monopoly government anymore than the existence of both Democrats and Republicans means we don't have a monopooly government here.

Did you even read what I said? I clearly explained why there is no right to education etc

We also have some xenophobes here who call themselves the Minuteman Project.

We also have some xenophobes here who call themselves the Minuteman Project.

As well as various gangs and organized crime organizations that operate without the consent, plus many private militias that are consitutionally protected.

Most of the saner anarchist theorists contend that a "just" agency (or even an innocent victim) has the right to forcibly respond to an "aggressor." But in the marketplace, which is governed solely by profit incentives, who will define who is the "aggressor" and who the "victim"? Which "private defense agency" has the final authority to enforce its definitions against those used by other competing agencies--or against individual "hold outs" who disagree--or against all those who proclaim a "sovereign right" to "secede" from that agency's determination?

When push comes to shove--as it often will, anarcho-fantasies to the contrary notwithstanding--the "private defense agency" faces a basic choice. Either (a) it uses coercion to enforce its verdict upon the "hold out" (or upon "competing agencies"), or (b) it fails to enforce its verdicts.

If (a), then the "private defense agency" is coercively "eliminating the competition"--that is, it's behaving as a "legal monopoly on force," in exactly the same way that anarchists find morally intolerable when a government is doing it. In that case, the argument for the moral superiority (let alone moral purity) of anarchism's "private defense agency" collapses.

If (b), however, then the agency's pronouncements are toothless and impotent. In that case, all that anyone need do to evade the private agency's criminal laws, verdicts, and sentences, is simply to ignore them.

Since many anarchists have tried gamely to ignore this key point, let me make it harder for them by repeating it.

Folks, it's really either/or. Either "private defense agencies" enforce their laws, or they don't.

If they do enforce their laws, then (by anarcho-definitions) they're "coercively" imposing their private legal systems on their competitors. And there goes their claim to morality.

But if they don't enforce their laws, then criminals will remain free to prey with impunity upon innocent individuals. And there goes the neighborhood.

Anarchists simply cannot tap dance around this dilemma by such subterfuges and dodges as claiming, "Oh, but governments would be far worse than private agencies"--or "Historically, limited governments never remain 'limited'."

Again, the moral case for anarchism is not that it is less bad than government, or that governments historically have not acted properly. The core anarchist claim is that anarchism is inherently non-aggressive, while government is inherently aggressive.

But both aspects of this claim are utterly and completely false.

There is nothing "immoral" or "aggressive" about an institution having the final authority to render and enforce just verdicts, according to objective procedures and rules of evidence. The fact that verdicts--by their very nature as final legal decisions--must be enforced against "outlaws," is not aggression, but defense: the organized social defense of the rights of innocent individuals against their victimizers. And the fact that final enforcement of legally rendered verdicts necessarily precludes further "competition," or "secession" by dissenters, is not aggression, either: it's simply recognition of reality. After all, an unenforced rule is not a law, but merely a suggestion.

Experience tells us that criminals do not respond to mere suggestions.

"Securing these rights is also something that must be provded"

How do I 'provide' 'liberty' to you? How do you force me, at gun point, to give you liberty? The pursuit of happiness? These are not things that can be acquired by forcing other people to give you something or to do something for you. You can not 'force' me to make you 'free', you can only prevent me from forcing you to do things. I do not understand why you have difficulty seeing the distinction between forcing someone to do something *for you* and preventing them from doing something *to you*

How do you prevent someone from doing something to you? Let’s talk in concretes for a second. Let’s say you want to be protected from a mugger. Now you could always take appropriate measures to avoid a situation where you were likely to get mugged, and carry a can of mace or a handgun just in case. But, you’re telling me that you have a right to have this situation prevented by the government. Back to my original question. How do you prevent this? While nothing is 100% guaranteed to prevent it, a heavy police presence in areas prone to mugging would help. This would deter most muggers, and also provide a greater probability that the culprit will be apprehended if any muggings do occur. Would you agree? So basically, your position is that you have a right to have your rights protected, by someone else. You and I are talking about two different things. You said:

I do not understand why you have difficulty seeing the distinction between forcing someone to do something *for you* and preventing them from doing something *to you*

When I spoke of the person who was forced to do something *for you*, it was that person who was charged with the task of preventing someone from doing something *to you* (ie, law enforcement officers).

When you spoke of preventing someone from doing something *to you*, you were referring to a criminal, ie someone who was trying to *force you* to do something. We were not on the same page.

Does that make sense? If you don’t agree, do you at least understand now the point I was making? I look forward to your comments. Thanks.

Constitutionally ignorant people might argue that the Constitution's "general welfare" clause justifies today's actions by Congress. Here's what James Madison said: "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." Thomas Jefferson echoed, in a letter to Pennsylvania Rep. Albert Gallatin, "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."

James Madison explained the constitutional limits on federal power in Federalist Paper No. 45: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . [to] be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce."

Here are my questions to you: Has our Constitution been amended to authorize federal spending on "objects of
benevolence"? Or, is it plain and simple constitutional contempt by Congress, the president, the courts and, worst of all, the American people? Or, am I being overly pessimistic and it's simply a matter of constitutional ignorance?