Free Subscription! 
iTunes 
Our podcast will keep you up to date...
How can the State be illegitmate when all of it's actions aren't?
With all the talk by the mantra anarchists (a new term I've coined) of "putting people in cages", "men with guns ....", etc., I got to thinking. Right now, the government has people in cages who, in my opinion, deserve to be in cages. But if all of this caging is being funded by tax dollars, shouldn't we let everyone out. After all, not everyone consenting to their tax dollars being used to cage these men and women? What about the pacifist?
Back to the subject. The State is doing legitimate things such as building roads, caging violent criminals, etc. Should the consistent anarchist be agitating for the abolition of the judicial system? Or should there be a correct order for the de-socialization of gov't enterprises?
__________________
Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it
Learned Hand
In the past men created witches: now they create mental patients.
Thomas Szasz
Relinquish liberty for the purposes of defense in an emergency?
Why? It would seem that in an emergency, of all times, one needs
his greatest strength. So if liberty is strength and slavery is weakness,
liberty is a necessity rather than a luxury, and we can ill afford
to be without it—least of all during an emergency.
F.A. Harper
I like that term, mantra anarachist. I think its an example of poor methodology. They are so focused on the ultimate goal that they impede themselves. Instead of focusing on issues which a lot of people are open to, they push the end-game, creating too many questions/inhibitors for those not in their tent to even consider the idea. Its like playing Phase Ten and being worried about Phase Ten when you are still on Phase One.
As far as a correct order: You can't dismantle a justice system without already having another system of some form ready to replace it (even if its a free-market system). You have to show that a free-market system is more effective, cheaper, and more just before you can convince people otherwise.
We have to face it: some(if not most) people are just not interested in philosophy. Even with concrete examples people are unwilling to change their minds or even consider it or even see their need to consider it. I think its one of the great evils of a democratic system. This is nothing new. You can go back to Ancient Greece and see how important rheotric was in swaying public opinion.
You can create the perfect plan for a freer society(a method for eliminating gov't programs for example) , get every bit of data, all financial concerns addressed, answer every question asked flawlessly, and still you wouldn't get a popular vote supporting it. There will still be that nagging fear in the back of people's heads for the need of a king.