But your reasoning is this, apparently: "Kent says he doesn't believe it is possible for a human society to not have a government, therefore Kent favors big intrusive government." This kind of "reasoning" is rife on cypherpunks; may I suggest it is beneath you?
I don`t think this is a necessarily entirely spurious line of reasoning, all government leads to large and intrusive government, it is the nature of power that it corrupts and is addictive. So the statement above could be corrected to "Kent says he doesn`t believe it is possible for a human society to not have a government, therefore Kent favours a system which would eventually "evolve" into big intrusive government". Anyway, the argument over anarchism vs. minarchism comes down very much to how you define government, if you define government as a body of people given the power to pass laws over the citizens of that jurisdiction, then government is indeed a bad thing per se, however, if you define government as a loose informal set of social norms and codes of behaviour (for a libertarian example see the NAP) then government is indeed present in all civilised and succesful human societies, real or conjectured. Datacomms Technologies data security Paul Bradley, Paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul@crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul@cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: FC76DA85 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"