.
.
.
Server problems.
I don’t know what you are talking about. You should be willing to test your own idea, not just speak of ifs and maybes.
All that you claimed is that “privitization of government” would not “go over well”. But “anarchy” would not “go over well”, either. So you proved nothing.
I tried to post this post yesterday but it failed, somewhat. Anyway, here it is:
In the context of all human action, two categories exist: means and ends; and a potential connection between those two categories exists: a causal connection. In relevant relation to this discussion, a policy is a means and a result of a policy is an ends.
If you were to be a utilitist, a consequentialist, you would choose which policy to advocate due to (a) what result you desire and (b) what policy causally connects to that result. In such a case, therefore, your utilitisticness, your consequentialisticness, would be your principle.
If you were to be a nonconsequentialist, you would choose which policy to advocate due to some other consideration. In such a case, your nonconsequentialisticness, as an example, some code of “natural law”, would be your principle.
That’s why I said test it. You didn’t say anywhere that you planned to.
I think I will refer to myself as a voluntarist from now on.