One thing I've never fully understood about people objecting to anarcho-capitalism, at least with regards to law enforcement, is how they are scared of an agency running around jailing or punishing people for crimes that the individual doesn't view as a crime. I have to ask though, what do you think any pot-smoker who was caught with a joint would have to say about such a scenario? Basically that is what we have now.
Liberals don't want their tax dollars to fund nation-building across the Atlantic and into Arabia. Conservatives don't want their tax dollars to fund abortions. Libertarian minarchists don't want their tax dollars to fund the drug war. Yet what do they do? They sit back and take it. That is the only reason why it doesn't seem as coercive as it is on the surface. They think somehow that we have peace in a Statist society, but the only peace occurs because they don't fight the law. If a PDA went around jailing people because "marijuana is immoral and a danger to the fabric of society," that would be seen as an outrage because it is assumed that their authority is just made up and declared by fiat. Yet somehow voting makes it okay.
Ok, that was a bit of a ranty post.
They can't criticize the principle of statist impositionism because they all lust for the power and control it has. Many people, especially intellectuals, are power-hungry and see other humans as vessels for their brilliance.
I think you're right. They don't think there's anything wrong with the State, as long as they can take control of it (in the next election cycle of course!).
I think power is not the case here. State is a mother and father, people believe in authority of state as much as they believe in the authority of their parents. They see DRO and PDA as stepfathers or complete strangers that they have no control.
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
Why have we adopted this 'PDA' and 'DRO' lingo? It's not like these things don't exist. They're arbitration agencies and private security, and anyone with the money to afford them prefers them. They're nothing new or unknown, right now a majority of corporate officers use the AAA, private security and insurance to resolve most of their company-to-company disputes.
"but what about the poor? what about the needy? What if they all create a big gang and start taking money from us with force? At least governments can protect us. We can vote and choose our masters"
There is no logic, its just pure indoctrination.
It's the illusion of peace under total domination. If you have no hope of winning, you don't fight; you cut your losses by surrendering. It's the possibility of overcoming enemies that leads to combat. Suppose we have two kidnappers. One kidnapped Dolph Lundgren. The other kidnapped a 6 year old girl. The one that kidnapped a 6 year old girl could gloat about how his system is peaceful whilst the other kidnappers system is a war of all against all. After all, the 6 girl year old girl saw no benefit to struggling against a big man being thrown in the van and sees no benefit to struggling against him to escape the prison.
Then there is the "power vacuum" argument. When two forces are mutually threatening to each other one has a half-life like some articifial element that turns into lead seconds after being created. So, nature abhorring a vacuum, will turn Dolph Lundgren into a 6 year old girl anyway and situation will end up the same.
Agreed about people merely being indoctrinated. I've had many fruitless debates on the matter of justice in an anarchist society. I've observed that people become very angry when you point out that their system exists singularly on using violence and the threat thereof to force others into adherence to their preferences.
Aside from that, it's pure irrational fear blended equal parts with hypocracy.
Group X fears a group of strangers (Y) dominating them. Group X then empowers another group of strangers (Z) to pre-emptively dominate other strangers (Y).
Madness.
And we should stick to pointing out such contradictions, because they are the core of their cognitive dissonance. Like religious people are atheists about 99,99 percents of the gods, statists do the same. They don't believe in any criminal gang ruling over them EXCEPT this one called "our state" or "our government".
You destroy this line of thinking and you almost have a new anarchist.