Your definition of slavery is really pushing the limits of what it actually is. It is not an over-sweeping generalization that anyone who has less rights than another is a slave. Telling a blind man he can not drive does not make him a slave in comparison to another. Slavery is about ownership but I will give it to you that there are similar themes among slavery and government, but they are no where near similar.
Your analogy is irrelevant. A disabled person is physically unable to drive without encroaching on the rights of others. Telling an able person they cannot move out of a given geographical area, taking their home at the point of a gun, and kidnapping them and locking them in a rape room if they do something you don't like... that's something rather different.
Homelessness is not against the law or it would not exist as they would be arrested and thrown in jail.
They often are... otherwise they're abused. The government is supposed to protect innocent people using its streets and facilities, but they can't even do
that right; there are hundreds of Dnepropetrovsk maniacs terrorizing homeless people and the police do nothing.
No one forces you to work. It is silly not to work, even without government because you need a way to provide for yourself and perhaps your family. Thus the government can not be forcing everyone to work when they would rather not. The housing claim is ridiculous to say the least. You are taking governmental regulation to the far extreme of terrible. If I want to rent an apartment, 99.99% of times (at least) I will be able to without the government telling me I can not which makes that argument also extremely weak. The last point is also taken to a far extreme. You could easily just walk into Mexico without much of a problem and getting a passport is extremely easy and it is very rare that the government will revoke it. Again, 99.99% of the time there isn't a problem, so again your argument is fairly weak.
A good portion of the money you could spend on the apartment will be stolen by men in costumes. The rent will be much higher because of those same costumed bandits stealing from your landlord, who in turn has to pay a great deal for the apartment complex because of how much the bandits stole from the builders, the mixers, the contractors, the architects, and so on.
The answer to all of these questions can be found in the Enlightenment-era literature from several hundred years ago.
And the answer to your answers can be found in countless brilliant sources that have sprung up in a movement that began during, and has strengthened since, the peak of the Enlightenment. Political Justice (Godwin) is a wonderful piece if you spare the time to read it. Tellingly, your sources' works
against the state are far more notable.
In a perfect world, government would be unnecessary. From Common Sense: "For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform, and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him out of two evils to choose the least."
Barely worth replying to. This is founded upon the foolish premise that man
has the option of deferring to another "lawgiver." His conclusion seems like his thousandth Freudian slip supporting Christianity, but I digress. Look around you; the government is not a magical being or even an ethereal social construct, neither of which exist. The government is people with weapons hurting people without them. Whether or not man "needs" another lawgiver, the government is composed of humans who, as it happens, are subject to the same temptations Paine believes necessitate government.
That's not what I was referring to. From Agrarian Justice: "Separate an individual from society, and give him an island or a continent to possess, and he cannot acquire personal property. He cannot be rich. So inseparably are the means connected with the end, in all cases, that where the former do not exist the latter cannot be obtained. All accumulation, therefore, of personal property, beyond what a man's own hands produce, is derived to him by living in society; and he owes on every principle of justice, of gratitude, and of civilization, a part of that accumulation back again to society from whence the whole came."
Fine...? Though the premise is flawed, I won't bother addressing it because the quote itself isn't relevant. Anti-authoritarianism has little to do with property ownership. Marx and I are both vehemently anti-state.
YES, without there would be chaos !
1. Prove it. 2. In what way is the United States orderly? 3. Even if you're correct, why is order good?
The most pure idea of "government free society" has already been tried and has failed countless times (sorry, I don't have examples but the fact that it, the original theory of class free communism, does not exist in real life seems like evidence enough.)
I haven't endorsed communism at any point during this thread. Communism is a bastardized term and, even by its original definition, is not the only form of anti-statehood. I should've stopped reading your post at "it has already failed countless times (sorry, I have no examples)".
Without governments there will be too much crime and gangs will try and lead communities.
Sort of like... a government?
I think the big question is, if it wasn't necessary, would the world come to complete chaos?
No, and your statement is proof enough that you're emotionally unable to accept the concept at hand. You just asked: "If government wasn't necessary, would it be necessary?"
