SM3
And what do you call, our present public school system if not chaotic.?
I call our present public school system lots of things, actually, but chaotic is not one of them. Assuming we can agree that chaos means basically the absence of order, the public school system is not even random in its output, let alone chaotic. If it were chaotic the kids wouldn't be learning anything at all. As it is they learn a great deal, actually - political correctness; revisionist history; how to feel good about themselves in the absence of real achievement; how to wear condoms and participate in certain "normative life styles as sexual animals". They are learning exactly what their teachers want them to learn. It's wrong, it's immoral, it's irreligious, it's evil, it's pernicious and insidious, but it's not at all chaotic - it's planned.
And what did you call the events of 9-11?
I called, and still call, the events of 9-ll despicable criminal acts and wanton murder by sociopathic agents of a despotic ideology ... but there was nothing chaotic in the acts themselves. They were well and thoroughly planned, carried out with precision and fairly good timing, and the results were even more spectacular than the bastards expected them to be. The results of those acts didn't even result in chaos because our immediate reaction to those events was measured and reasonable (perhaps more reasonable than I would have liked); in fact, we reacted as a civilized society to a barbaric act. Had we not had trained, experienced and dedicated firemen, police and military personnel, chaos might well have reigned - but we do have those "government" forces, and there was no chaos.
Government sure as hell can't teach kids to read or do math.
No argument there, at least to the point that government is NOT teaching kids to read or do math. On the other hand, government or rather the NGO known as the NEA IS teaching kids all that they want them to know. We're not making accidental dummies, Joe; it's all part of the desired outcome. Check out the writings of a guy called Antonio Gramsci, and see if his ideas of socialist infiltration hasn't been successful, and isn't responsible for the usurpation of the society our Founders gave us.
And it did nothing to protect those folks in the World Trade center.
No, it didn't, at least not before the fact. It's a moot point how many more might have died had the police and fire personnel not responded as they did, but those were government forces. However, the fact that our government agencies didn't do more than they did has no bearing on whether an anarchist state would have responded any better. Nor do you have anything more than theory to suggest that anarchic forces would have done any better, not even any anecdotal evidence that I know about, because there's never been an anarchist state to look at for examples.
Of course government did extract some retribution. At monopolistic prices I might add.
As it happens I know quite a little bit about government and military procurement, and to suggest that we would be better off relying a military force provided by the lowest bidder is simply ludicrous. Actually, it's more than ludicrous, it's pie-in-the-sky.
Chaos? We're not there yet; in fact, we're not even close.
Problems with an out-of-control government? Without question, and we need to do quite a lot about that. But going toward anarchy is not the answer.
Our Founders were cognizant of all forms of government when the came together to form that more perfect union, and what they gave us was a democratic republic, not a pure republic, and not a democracy by any definition. As bad as it is, no one has yet offered up anything that works better - not libertarians, not socialists, and not the anarchists. Nor will they ever.