Here is my analogy of the U.S. government: For anyone to be logically consistent, who is for the U.S. government system, they would have to agree that it would be OK for me to open a grocery store, then set arbitrary geographical limits of something like, “everyone within a 10 mile radius has to pay me for their groceries.” I will let them all vote for who gets to be in management, but only those that are over 17 years old gets to vote. The management will get to decide what food is distributed, how much, the quality of the food, and the price of the food.
WHO IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WOULD EVER AGREE TO SUCH AN IDEA?
[edited with thoughts from my other thread that I thought was better]
Basic analogy is alright… However you need to back it up with a further analogy about the justification for the monopoly, the justification given for the state is of course that it performs functions which the free market is unable to supply its own law and one can certianly understand why this might be the case. So use that analogy, talk about how the justification would be that without the monopoly for the grocery store would prevent starvation, that is to say on the free market there may, or may not, be any grocery stores around to provide people with food, and if you control the food supply you control the poeple, so it is far safer merely to install a monopoly on grocery services.
I think expanding the analogy to this, and then defending it with the concept of emergent free market law would make it a truly effective technique.
EDIT
Finger of Shame points twoards you Spidey! Double posting a thread? Come now!
You remind me of something. Back in the good old days of socialism, every neighborhood in Tirana had a “parliament” where all those over 18 had a right to vote. The parliament ‘judged’ cases brought to it by the local inhabitants: someone yelling to his wife, someone’s kid being noisy or bad at school and I’m sure a few laughs have been mad over some impotence issue (women can be witches if they want to).
The idea is that this system was the ultimate democracy: it was direct, not representative, it was so small as to allow anyone to personally know legislators, it entailed no personal gain/loss for individual legislators and it only meted out “common law” not legislation. Does anyone miss it nowadays? No, because they see that such things are the absolute sphere of competence of the individual.
But if this ‘perfect democracy’ was demeaning and unbearable, how can anyone bear our imperfect, national, democracy? I can understand how westerners can be lied to , but how can my guys, who have seen democracy in action take the bait, that is still a mystery to me.