[quote author=PaulOtt link=topic=4846.msg50672#msg50672 date=1299500864]
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50657#msg50657 date=1299438920]
I agree legal does not always equal moral. Legal however is based upon the will of the people. The people you elect make these laws, therefore you are directly responsible for these laws. If you don't like the law, elect someone else, protest, or become an activist, and have the law changed.
[/quote]
I appreciate your willingness to post in this thread and share your thoughts.
Unfortunately the idea that because the majority elects someone that enacts legislation, this legislation must always be enforced is simply not true. Like you said yourself, "legal does not always equal moral". It is my personal belief that God gave us a mind and a heart that are to be used, and when we die the excuse of "I was just doing my job" will not hold water. Rather, we are responsible for all of our actions as an individual interacting with other individuals. You chose that profession and have 100% control and accountability for everything you do.
If you do not care for the religious argument, I will simply say that it is the police and military that are often the right hand of overreaching governments and leaders, regardless of how those leaders came to be in power. Please use discretion, and encourage other police to do the same.
[/quote]
You are dead on.
The problem people here seem to have is that I don't usually have a moral issue enforcing the rules they made. Yes, many of these rules are hypocritical- the government and basic human morality say that theft is wrong, but I enforce rules made by the thieves in government. I understand this hypocrisy, but I choose to believe the rules I vigorously enforce are done for the greater good, while the other rules (where I have discretion to ignore them if need be) are done more for taxing the public and don't always serve the purpose of bettering the public. That is the paradox of my situation- you are damned if you do, and damned if you don't.
I choose to do it because I believe I have done far more good than bad.
Isn't there a term for folks who can't grasp the difference between right and wrong?
Joe
@ free libertarian- It's pretty insulting to everyone's intelligence to compare a ticket with killing people.
But to answer your question with a question- did the jew or slave commit a mala in se crime? And what would be my motivation or law for going after you for aiding a slave or hiding a jew- ie what makes it wrong?
My example with the neighbor was actually a simple example of comparing you with me and the neighbor with a 3rd party. The idea that you would protect a 3rd party when that 3rd party is wronged is exactly what I do on a daily basis. Only my 3rd party is people in general/State. So what's the difference between me protecting society and you protecting your neighbor? You would initiate force against the threat to your neighbor, I just initiate force against threats to all the people. I just do what you would do on a much larger scale.
@ the cop
You say you chose to be a cop because you have done more good than bad, what grounds exactly do you have to make such a claim?
Do you have any data whatsoever that shows you that the people you are forcing to pay your wages -the taxpayers- are actually satisfied with your services?
Do you have any data whatsoever that shows that the people you are forcing to pay your wages even WANT your services?
If not, on what grounds are you stealing from them and then forceable "serving" them with the good YOU think is needed?
I don't understand why so many people on this forum are falling for your trap when you demand proof that the free market -or any other voluntaristic system out there- will do any better to solve all of people's problems by jumping through a bunch of hypothetical hoops you set out for them, when you yourself are providing no such proof on your little police state system.
Are you and your fellow officers flawlessly providing people with those services you've demanded a voluntary society to have solutions for?
Why is the burden of proof on us when YOU can't even proof that you are providing the baseline service for WHICH YOU'RE CHARING people already, all the time?
I can't even count the times that the cops have not provided me or people I know with the services that they are supposed to provide, yet I, nor anybody else I know has EVER received a tax refund for not getting the services we already forceable payed for.
How are you morally justifying stealing from people to pay for services they don't want AND aren't even getting?
I don't know if a voluntary society will do better or worse at shutting up a loud and annoying neighbor.
I don't know if a voluntary society will do better or worse at catching a rapist, or a violent criminal.
I don't know if a volentary society will do better or worse at providing me with restitution for damages done to my property.
And frankly, I don't CARE if it will be any better or not, because as things are right now… I KNOW that it's completely arbitrary whether or not the cops will actually provide me with any of the above services… and yet I KNOW that I will be charged for all of them… whether I get served or not, and whether I want the service or not to begin with.
I also know that if the cops are NOT providing me with the services they are responsible for providing me with, there is NOTHING I can do about it…
No way to get a refund, no way to change to a different provider, no way to hold them accountable for their lack of service in any way…
I want you, Mr. cop, to stop charging me for services you are not providing.
And I want you to understand that, even if the free market will be just as bad, or maybe even worse, at guarantying my safety than you are and your system of dictators are, it will be by DEFAULT a system morally superior to yours, because it's not extorting payment from me for services not provided to me, or not desired by me.
Start by understanding the immorality of the system that guaranties your paycheck, and then you can come back to argue with me about whether or not your actions on the job are doing more good than they are harm.
But as long as your baseline paycheck is the result of theft, your job is immoral, you are immoral for holding that job, and there is no point whatsoever to debate whether your personal actions on the job are moral or not, because you will have committed theft and you will have initiated force against innocent people, SIMPLY by showing up to work in the morning.
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50716#msg50716 date=1299544109]I choose to believe the rules I vigorously enforce are done for the greater good, while the other rules (where I have discretion to ignore them if need be) are done more for taxing the public and don't always serve the purpose of bettering the public. That is the paradox of my situation- you are damned if you do, and damned if you don't.
I choose to do it because I believe I have done far more good than bad.
[/quote]
Ok. I really, really like this. From my purely anecdotal experience and those I speak with who have had many interactions with the police, it seems the common defense is to shift responsibility away to someone else by saying "I'm just doing my job". I'm very pleased to see you having the courage to take responsibility for your own actions.
Now I'm going run with this. We all like to laugh about archaic laws. You know, in some places it is illegal to have oral sex or other places where you can't put on a puppet show without a license or odd stuff like that–stuff that is never enforced. However, as I grew older I learned that some of the most common laws being enforced today are just as archaic and out of place. Let me give you two examples.
55mph speed limit
In 1974 a federal law was passed that prohibited speeds faster than 55mph on certain roads in an effort to conserve gasoline. It took 20 years before the law was repealed, and even today 55 is still the most common speed limit despite dramatic increases in car safety and gas efficiency. So I ask you this: do the dangers and 'bad' associated with pulling someone over, wasting their and your time, and fining them for going faster than an arbitrary speed set 37 years ago in a socialistic effort to control human behavior outweigh the tiny bit of 'good' that inevitably results from the stress and fear of encountering highway patrolmen?
Marijuana
We're coming up on 100 years since the propaganda surrounding marijuana first began circulating in the United States.
[list]
When Montana outlawed marijuana in 1927, the Butte Montana Standard reported a legislator’s comment: “When some beet field peon takes a few traces of this stuff… he thinks he has just been elected president of Mexico, so he starts out to execute all his political enemies.”
In Texas, a senator said on the floor of the Senate: “All Mexicans are crazy, and this stuff is what makes them crazy.”
Dr. A. E. Fossier wrote in the 1931 New Orleans Medical and Surgical Journal: “Under the influence of hashish those fanatics would madly rush at their enemies, and ruthlessly massacre every one within their grasp.”
In 1930, a new division in the Treasury Department was established — the Federal Bureau of Narcotics — and Harry J. Anslinger was named director. Here are some quotes that have been widely attributed to Anslinger and his Gore Files:
“There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others.”
“…the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races.”
“Marijuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death.”
“Reefer makes darkies think they’re as good as white men.”
“Marihuana leads to pacifism and communist brainwashing”
“You smoke a joint and you’re likely to kill your brother.”
“Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind.”
Some samples from the San Francisco Examiner:
“Marihuana makes fiends of boys in thirty days — Hashish goads users to bloodlust.”
“By the tons it is coming into this country — the deadly, dreadful poison that racks and tears not only the body, but the very heart and soul of every human being who once becomes a slave to it in any of its cruel and devastating forms…. Marihuana is a short cut to the insane asylum. Smoke marihuana cigarettes for a month and what was once your brain will be nothing but a storehouse of horrid specters. Hasheesh makes a murderer who kills for the love of killing out of the mildest mannered man who ever laughed at the idea that any habit could ever get him….”[/list]
I think you get the idea. And on top of that, they outlawed growing hemp which isn't even the same thing. This is another archaic law that should not be enforced by anyone. It was based on wild-eyed lies and fear mongering. It does not better society in any way. Jail is more dangerous and can have a worse influence on a young man's life than marijuana.
Do you fine people for going faster than 55mph or arrest people for possession of marijuana? How about other victimless crimes?
Are you still sure you've done far more good than bad?
Or, a better question: Is it possible to do less of the bad? I think that's what you, I, and those on this forum all want.
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50644#msg50644 date=1299409916]
My authority comes from not just a book, but the people in the community. I am expected to uphold the rules in the book that the people put there.
[/quote]
Actually that's not true at all. Most of the rules in your sacred book were put there by people who are long dead. Dead people have no expectations.
And anyway, expectations doesn't equal authority. I expect criminals to commit crimes. If we adopted your reasoning then that would give criminals the authority to commit crimes, because that's what's expected. Obviously that's absurd, and so is your reasoning.
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50719#msg50719 date=1299545616]So what's the difference between me protecting society and you protecting your neighbor? You would initiate force against the threat to your neighbor, I just initiate force against threats to all the people. I just do what you would do on a much larger scale.[/quote]
Someone still doesn't grasp what "initiate" means. I realize that starting trouble, versus reacting to trouble, is a concept that most toddlers can understand, so does that mean that cops have less sense than the average toddler?
Joe
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50629#msg50629 date=1299374731]
And depending on the mitigating circumstances, yes you could potentially arrest someone based upon the allegation they did something. If someone came into hq and said, "I just killed Nancy", then even without physical evidence they would be detained.
[/quote]
Um, perhaps I'm the idiot here, but if a man comes in and says he killed someone, that's called a confession isn't it? Isn't a confession evidence of a crime? Therefore someone coming in an confessing to a crime isn't an allegation and would be lawful(not legal) grounds to cause an arrest. As apposed to your example about 'blood on weeds' where in that is an allegation that a crime has occurred without any evidence. I personally don't care for weed, but I'd defend a man's ability to smoke that weed. Your opinion that enforcing the rules on weed are justified because somewhere it is possible that someone's blood was spilled. There exists such things as 'blood diamonds', would you use your justification on possessors of all diamonds because it it is possible they were 'blood diamonds'? How about firearms, the legal ones? It is possible that blood was spilled somewhere between the making of and my receiving of a firearm, are you willing to arrest everyone who has a firearm for your same justification. I am of course being absurd to point out that your justification of enforcing the rule on drugs is equally absurd.
'Cop' you further state that I am part of the 'state'. Do you have any evidence that this is true, or are you making a blind and unsubstantiated allegation? I don't elect people to do anything for me. So it can't be said I elected anyone. If I didn't elect anyone then shouldn't your rules not bind me since I made no choice to whom my master should be? I'd love you to sit right down and read 'No Treason' by Lysander Spooner and allow him to poke so many holes into your 'society of elected people'.
An exercise in the use of logic and reasoning as it applies to voting.
Let us assume there is 'Cop' and I. A third party, Representative, comes along and asks that 'Cop' and I vote to elect him as our 'representative'. 'Cop' insists that sometimes it is okay to initiate force against people. I on the other hand believe there is no justification for the initiation of force. If 'Cop' and I elect Representative to be our 'representative' can it be said that on this single issue that there will always be disagreement between us? If it is true that in this single issue there will always be disagreement between us, then can it be said that Representative can not represent us at the same time on this issue? If that is true, then on this issue, Representative can only represent 'Cop' or I at one time. If Representative chooses "Cop's" side, then I am not be represented and Representative is no longer my representative. I no long have representation, so any rules 'Cop' convinces Representative to bind 'Cop' and I to, that violates my opinion of the initiation of force, makes me a de facto slave, or at least a second class person. Now, if I on the other hand convince Representative to pass some rule that violates "Cop's" opinion on justified initiation of force, then we are making 'Cop' a de facto slave. In passing rules that violate "Cop's" opinion, Representative can no longer represent 'Cop'. Let us magnify the situation.
Let us assume then there there is 'Cop' and I and 9,999 other people. Let us all assume that we all 'elected' Representative as our 'representative'. I decide that "Cop's" opinion of justified initiation of force has plagued society enough and it is time to 'correct' the situation. I and 5,000 other people convince Representative to pass a new rule. This rule says that anyone who believes in the concept of justified initiation of force shall be put to death. Let us further assume, that 'Cop' has been charged with the 'crime' and had his day in 'court', incidently the 'judge' was one of the 5,000 people against "Cop's" opinion, but that shouldn't matter, right? Now, 'Cop', let me ask you, would you be willing to be put to death for this? Logically, if you believe that the rules, all rules, ought to be followed, then you should be glad to follow the rules, shouldn't you? Logically, you must jump right into the death chamber and happily be put to death. Of course not. The concept of following the rules passed by someone who was 'elected' to make rules that cause harm to others ought never to be followed. Anyone who follows rules that harm others is nothing more then a criminal themselves.
I could beat to death the idea of 'elected representatives'. For example, if the system of electing people is by secret ballot, how can you prove your vote was counted? You'd have to rely on everyone being honest, and since statistically, 10 percent of the population will never rob you, and 10 percent will always rob you, and the remaining 80 percent would rob you if the right opportunity presented itself, that would be foolish. What happens when you vote for A and B gets elected, are you really represented or are you now a de facto slave to the majority? Answer, the majority always enslaves the minority. What about the notion that 'government exists at the consent of the governed', it can only be send that those who choose to vote are to be consenting and that those who do not vote are not bound to the rules that the 'governed' make. Of course, it doesn't matter if you vote or not, you are a slave to the elected master. The idea that anyone can change the 'system' is the 'great white hope' lamented by all those who like the rules as they are and are the first ones to cry fowl when the rules no longer favor them.
Rules that violate 'rights' of the minority are unlawful, those who enforce unlawful rules are criminals in the eyes of the Great Maker. I surely hope, 'Cop', you don't believe in God or Heaven, because guess what, that's not who you are going to see or where you are going when you are released from this mortal coil.
LAWL. So if I lock someone up for weed, I get to burn in hell for eternity? Holy shit, I should quit tomorrow then.
Why do some of you people LOVE to use extremes like murder and rape as your litmus test on what's right and wrong? The legal system is not black and white, but all kinds of colors in between.
Let's assume for a moment they try to pass a law that is mala in se, like murdering people based on religion, skin color, or liking the letter 'Q.' There would be the handful of people that would follow their rule simply because it was the rule, but the VAST, VAST, VAST majority of us robots would have them rounded up and prosecuted. There would be a coup quicker than you could imagine.
Now that we're past that speculative bullshit, let's move on to a reasonable debate, shall we?
And you are part of the state because you choose to live within the state. If you did not wish to be part of the state, you must find your own little haven outside of the state and declare sovereignty. You can not suck the tit of government and use their roads, infrastructure, businesses, and amenities, and expect to 'live free' of any rule or obligation to the state. Nice idea in theory, entirely impractical and unrealistic in real life.
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50785#msg50785 date=1299631401]
LAWL. So if I lock someone up for weed, I get to burn in hell for eternity? Holy shit, I should quit tomorrow then.
[/quote]
Who said anything about burning in hell? I'm pretty sure religion isn't a prerequisite for morality.
But yes, you really should quit tomorrow considering that you admit to your job being immoral.
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50785#msg50785 date=1299631401]
Let's assume for a moment they try to pass a law that is mala in se, like murdering people based on religion, skin color, or liking the letter 'Q.' There would be the handful of people that would follow their rule simply because it was the rule, but the VAST, VAST, VAST majority of us robots would have them rounded up and prosecuted. There would be a coup quicker than you could imagine.
[/quote]
Actually, history has shown time and time again, in different era, at different locations, in different cultures that them don't get rounded up and prosecuted until a considerable portion of the population is on their "murder because they have a different [blank]" list.
Revolutions don't happen until a considerable amount of the population feels immediately and personally threatened by the regime, and until that time, robots like you almost without exception will always flawlessly follow orders using the justification of "only doing my job".
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50785#msg50785 date=1299631401]
Now that we're past that speculative bullshit, let's move on to a reasonable debate, shall we?
[/quote]
Actually, before you try to pass off speculative bullshit as fact for the simple reason of you have stated it, how about you start off by backing up your claim and coming up with ONE example, or ONE single regime where "robots like you" immediately and without pressure from civil disobedience proceeding you refused to follow orders when a regime started putting immoral laws on the books.
It's very easy for you to claim in your above statement that a police force would prosecute them for ordering the police force to kill… but can you actually come up with a single example of that actually happening?
I'm assuming that I don't need to cite the many many many example of the opposite happening, though I realize that you're probable a product of the American education system, which may mean you don't have a clue about the example history has set for us… if that's the case, let me know, and I'll gladly cite you several example.
Meanwhile, I'm waiting to hear of your examples of the contrary…
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50785#msg50785 date=1299631401]
And you are part of the state because you choose to live within the state. If you did not wish to be part of the state, you must find your own little haven outside of the state and declare sovereignty. You can not suck the tit of government and use their roads, infrastructure, businesses, and amenities, and expect to 'live free' of any rule or obligation to the state. Nice idea in theory, entirely impractical and unrealistic in real life.
[/quote]
This is a false argument, because people are born a part of the state and not even legally allowed to choose to move outside of the reach of the state unless they reach a status and an age at which the state ALLOWS them to leave.
As far as Americans go, even when they have an age and status that will make the state allow them to leave, they still have to pay an "exit free".
The fact that slaves could often buy their own freedom doesn't proof that they weren't slaves, nor does the fact that people of legal age and certain statuses are allowed to choose their "owner" proof that they chose to be owned.
Unless the state allows for their to be territory in which no state has jurisdiction, telling people that they can move and pick a new "owner" in now way shows that they are not slaves right now…
@Paul- we know that the idea of marijuana laws are bullshit. I've already admitted as such. The official justification is the idea of blood on the plants. Now some of this IS true to a great extent, and some is hyped. But this debate should not be about weed. Seems like a lot of the justification for the FSP IS the ability to smoke weed. It defeats the purpose of what could be a reasonable idea, and focuses too much on one small aspect of your social life.
Speed limits…Ever hear the term 'speed kills?' It's entirely true. It is reasonable to expect people to drive at 25 mph on a highway? No. But there needs to be a modicum of safety involved. They chose the limit as 55 based upon the then available technology, roads, and fuel consumption. The technology back then was 'stone age' compared to now. There were some seatbelts, but no airbags, ABS, or crumple technology that exists now. And the tires were good for burnouts, but that's about it. So before you base the 55mph limit solely on gas consumption, research it a little more. It will seem that the speed limit was reasonable.
I've investigated fatals and serious crashes, and the FIRST question always asked is, "How fast were they going?" You can usually tell by where the body struck the car, how many pieces they were in, and the distance the pieces land from point of impact. And let me tell you something, a hit at 25 has a medium chance of killing you, but anything over it is bad news for the guy getting run over.
I have kids. Ever since I've had kids, I've gained pet peeves that used to never bother me, like someone doing 40 in a 15mph school zone. Yes, 15mph is another 'arbitrary' number, but would you rather have your kid hit at 15 mph or 40 mph? Or what about people doing 50+ on a residential street? Is that freedom for the speeder or is it a violation of a NAP for the guy that tries crossing the street and is torn into 2 pieces?
Be careful what you wish for - a society with no rules or no one to enforce those rules is a society you wouldn't want to live in. What you view as 'control' probably saves your life on a daily basis.
[quote author=Ishtar link=topic=4846.msg50788#msg50788 date=1299633234]
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50785#msg50785 date=1299631401]
LAWL. So if I lock someone up for weed, I get to burn in hell for eternity? Holy shit, I should quit tomorrow then.
[/quote]
Who said anything about burning in hell? I'm pretty sure religion isn't a prerequisite for morality.
But yes, you really should quit tomorrow considering that you admit to your job being immoral.
[/quote]
Rules that violate 'rights' of the minority are unlawful, those who enforce unlawful rules are criminals in the eyes of the Great Maker. I surely hope, 'Cop', you don't believe in God or Heaven, because guess what, that's not who you are going to see or where you are going when you are released from this mortal coil. - cyberdoo78
@Ishtar- There is NOTHING stopping you from moving to a sandbar 3 miles off the coast of any country and declaring your sovereignty. You don not need the state's permission to do so. Please let me know how things work out for you when you get electricity and the internet up.
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50791#msg50791 date=1299633610]
@Ishtar- There is NOTHING stopping you from moving to a sandbar 3 miles off the coast of any country and declaring your sovereignty. You don not need the state's permission to do so. Please let me know how things work out for you when you get electricity and the internet up.
[/quote]
Actually, there are several examples world-wide of people doing just that, and various governments stopping them from doing so.
In fact, if I remember correctly, much of European colonization happened because people where trying to do just that, and where successful at it until the government caught up with them and randomly decided to form a "country" on territory that people already inhabited and that the government had no moral jurisdiction over.
Considering that you feel that people should be able to claim uninhabited land as their own, you surely understand that the concept of "the USA" has no moral grounds to exist whatsoever, because it had no right to claim ownership over land that people already owned…
As far as not needing the states permission to do so…
Americans are not allowed to leave this country with the intend of renouncing their American citizenship without paying an "exit fee" to the government first.
They are also not allowed to live abroad and not pay property taxes to the US government.
Trying to do either is considered "tax-evasion" by the US government, which proofs that the US government considers American citizens to be their slaves that they can tax EVEN IF the "citizen" in question isn't even using any of the government's services, or is renouncing citizenship.
If you need permission to leave, and owe money for leaving… you're a slave, which is exactly what American citizens are.
Then move to your island and declare a no-extradition policy with the US govt. Problem solved.
Western Sahara has no government…I've often wondered why this was not a place chosen (even symbolically) for the Free State Movement, or why the obvious shortcomings of a stateless society are not acknowledged.
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50793#msg50793 date=1299634474]
Then move to your island and declare a no-extradition policy with the US govt. Problem solved.
[/quote]
So your solution to fixing a problem of an illegitimate and immoral government is to run away and ignore the issue?
So you're proposing that if we see people or groups of people behave in an immoral fashion the moral thing to do is ignore it, instead of trying to fix it?
Interesting philosophy for somebody who claims he chose to become a cop because he felt it would do more good than harm…
I'm just suggesting an option. Of course you need to be recognized by the US gov't first, which likely isn't an option.
Second, you are HERE, and therefore under our society's rules. You can't just move somewhere, take over, and set up your own little settlement and expect to not have to follow the rules of the people in that area (unless you are Israeli). And if you attempt to do something like this anywhere else on earth, you need to bring a lot of guns because people might get pissed at you.
And your morality might be different than someone else. Why do you insist that YOUR morality is proper and all others are foolish? Maybe your morality is wrong. Talk to someone from the ME and learn just how wrong your drug using might be. Or how about trying to walk around in public without a face covering if you're a girl? Now let's talk morality…
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50799#msg50799 date=1299636478]
Now let's talk morality…
[/quote]
I never said that my morality is the only right one, but I reserve the right to be upset by, and to do anything in my power to change the fact that other people like you are forceable trying to impose their morality on me, when I am doing no such thing to them.
I will always resist other people imposing their morality on me… I want you, Mr cop to leave me alone and stop charging me for your services, when you don't provide me with your services, and I didn't request them to begin with.
As for your suggestion to talk about morality with you…
No thanks, please go ahead and answer my questions first, and substantiate some of your previous empty claims by actually backing them up with evidence.
Unless you're willing to actually have a debate and be accountable for the things you say, there is no point in debating you on anything, because you will just ignore any point made to you and put your spin on everything else.
[quote author=holy_canole link=topic=4846.msg50795#msg50795 date=1299634601]
Why the obvious shortcomings of a stateless society are not acknowledged.
[/quote]
You mean the hypothetical shortcomings of a stateless society?
I personally don't think the hypotheticals of what might go wrong can be adequately addressed before hand, because nobody really knows what would happen and how the market would actually react.
Everything is speculation when it comes to proposing solutions and as such, mental masturbation.
In the end, I don't really care about which things would be better and which things would be worse in a stateless society, simple because I know one thing that's of main importance to me: I would no longer be forced to pay for services I never ever receive under the mum of taxes and freedom.
I really don't care that my life may possible become much more difficult in a stateless society, because at the very least, I would be able to be personally accountable and responsible for my own life, instead of being forced to pay for a system that's supposedly protecting me off all kinds of things that nobody can actually offer me protection for, and extorting most of the money I'll ever earn in my life to do so.
I'm really absolutely completely SICK of people constantly expecting that there will be some kind of "magical" system in place that will save people from their own lives, their own responsibilities, their own duties, their own troubles, and will somehow, be utopian and perfect… while being run by imperfect and selfish individuals.
NO system will ever do this for us, and the human race can't move forward unless we accept that nobody out there is going to come save us from ourselves… nor SHOULD they.
All evil any government has ever caused in the course of history is all the result from trying to create a perfect system with imperfect people to run it.