As far as I’m concerned, I’m acting no differently from before. So either I didn’t accost you verbally before, or I’m still accosting you verbally now.
I don’t know what you mean by “govern themselves”, and I don’t know what makes you believe that a direct democracy will give “the people” an opportunity to learn how to do that. Please clarify.
This seems to be in the direction of clarifying my second source of confusion above. But I fail to see how direct democracy will lead people to develop an appreciate of local control, let alone individual self-reliance and self-determination. A direct democracy still involves majority rule and a one-size-fits-all approach to decision-making. I think a better approach would be to abandon the notion of legislation entirely.
I, for one, in no way consider that to be a justification for your strawman attacks - which, by the way, seem to be ongoing. And none of us is a priori obligated to provide you or anyone else with any transitional plan. Criticism can certainly be valid even if no alternative is offered.
This seems to be a red herring. I was addressing your contention that people make “inefficient”, “wasteful”, and “bad” decisions all the time. You seemed to be equating such things with committing aggression, i.e. the initiatory intrusion, or threat of intrusion, upon another’s person and/or property.
Assuming you’re not arguing from the nirvana fallacy, I do think that private industry will do better with roads than the government. By your reasoning thus far, leaving food distribution in the hands of private industry should be an unmitigated disaster.
I have no idea what you actually mean by this.
See above.
You don’t intimidate me in the slightest. You might be used to verbally bullying others, but such nonsense will have no effect on me. I don’t even care if you don’t understand that.
Now then, when I say that I care about the whole world, of course I’m referring to the whole human world - because I’m a human and not some other species of animal.
Your use of “etc.” implies that this list is not exhaustive. An enumeration is typically taken to be an exhaustive list. Please provide one or I will conclude that you are unable to do so.
As Clayton has tried explaining to you, over and over again, everyone is partial. You yourself seem to recognize this when it comes to private industry and actually existing government. Yet you seem to have a cognitive blindspot when it comes to this utopian notion of “[acting] in the public interests, partial to none”. I fail to understand why this would be the case, unless it’s just wishful thinking.
A private firm can certainly stop trading with another country (or other organization) that it believes is engaging in unfair trade practices. Yet that doesn’t seem to be enough for you. You want there to be certainty that no one will ever engage in unfair trade practices after a given point in time. Such certainty cannot exist, for the future is inherently uncertain. Perhaps it’s this illusion of certainty that is your true wishful thinking.
If they’re not paid by those who use their services, then either they’re not bad at all, or they’re subsidized by one or more other organizations (who presumably are paid by those who use their services), or they’re funded by taxation. I suspect you have the third alternative in mind. If so, then you’re implying that courts of law have a higher claim over (part of) people’s property than people themselves do. I fail to see how I personally can consider this higher claim to be legitimate, since it arises only by fiat.
Please explain why you think that organizations which enjoy imputed monopolies over legitimate coercion - i.e. governments - can (let alone should or must) be trusted to have such weapons. I suspect your answer will again appeal to the wishful-thinking notion of “[acting] in the public interest, partial to none”.
If there are more of them, presumably they won’t be so overworked. You seem to be overlooking the laws of supply and demand as they apply to various labor/service markets.
If people are willing to take fiat money in exchange for fancy cars and mansions, that’s their problem.
I wouldn’t. In the world I envision, it wouldn’t be up to me, so I see no point in speculating otherwise. I only speculate about how people would likely organize and interact in a stateless world.