In democracy you only have the illusion of influencing things. It might feel like you are having an influence when you happen to be in the majority. But in reality you have as much influence over things as you influence the weather. Just because you hope for a sunny day and the sun happens to shine, it doens't mean you have any influence over weather, even if would seem like you do.Tobias wrote:Atleast with the government one has the option to (in a democracy) influence how that cash is spent. In a system with every man for itself, you have no such options. In the government case there is also the option of influencing how much money to be taxed, and again in the anarchy scenario, there are no such option. Whether taxes is stealing or not, is irrelevant. One will have to buy that protection somehow anyways and a democratic government has so far proven to be the lesser of the evils.
It's true, that you have to pay protection money for someone, but social democratic governments extort money from their citizen also for purposes other then protection. Instead of anarchy, it would be fairer to compare against minarchism, where you only pay for the only necessity - protection, or against anarcho-capitalism. But it's not like these forms of government will ever be tested. Any attempt to form an anarcho-capitalists "state" (without the help of nuclear weapons) would be swiftly (and bloodily) put to an end by the democrats, because democrats are not be willing to give up their extortees away. If they did, who would be left to willingly pay for all the useless stuff (except the people who can't afford to pay)?