Then you have a very limited view of history. Crime, theft and murder used to be extremely more common.

You may be able to defend yourself against your neighbor. What about women and children? What about against multiple aggressors, or ones with better weapons? Turns out, without an effective police force, liberties are distributed a lot less equally...

Steve Pinker explained in a TED talk that hunter/gatherer societies are a lot more violent than modern societies. For example these groups have to launch preemptive attacks against neighbors if only for fear of the other group striking first.

> Then you have a very limited view of history.

Pro tip: when disagreeing with someone on a philosophical point, it's good form to leave "you" statements out of the debate.

Good day, sir.

It's amazing I've never heard this pro-tip before, but it's phenomenal. Wow. Thanks for this tiny piece of advice in the middle of all this.

The right to property implies the right to also defend that property. I'm what stops my neighbor from taking my stuff, not the government.

Looking back at history, strong governments have been THE source of oppression and limitations of freedoms.

And if your neighbor is bigger and stronger than you? If 100 of your neighbors get together to take your stuff? If 100 of your neighbors independently want your stuff?

What if the government wants your stuff or 20-50% of it?

At the absolute barest minimum, even disregarding any context, it's better to have to one known entity demanding a share than an unlimited number of unknown ones doing the same.

If it makes no difference who is robbing or extorting you, I'd go with the ones I have a better chance of defending myself from: my neighbors.