So can I take it with force?

Yes. They can and WILL be taken by force, just look at the world as it is today. Do you see any nations taking something by force?

Not if I beat you there and/or have bigger guns.

So you believe that laws are for the weak?

Absolutely. The worlds' societies should operate like a hybrid of the Mad Max movies and The Flintstones. Good ol' family values and living from the Earth while defending you and yours with giant trucks that have cow-catchers welded to the front.

Your starting to sound a little socialist. Its scaring me.

Just trying to play Devil's Advocate. I made this thread because in my Philosophy class a bunch of kids presented their projects on government (some pro and some anti libertarian, socialist, etc)

aahh sounds good! I'm glad to hear your just playing Advocate here.

For your first question, I would ask them in what society have people distributed everything equally, and seen massively positive results. Every country that has employed a heavy degree of forced distribution has seen problems. It is the same reason you wouldn't elect a 1 year old baby as president of the EU.

I would ask them how does one succed in a capitalist society versus a socialist society. Both absolutely require merit, or no goods will be produced, and everyone will eventually die. Life requires action regardless of political ideology. If farmers cannot farm, then people will not eat. If miners don't mine, buildings will never be created. If people don't repair buildings, they collapse. Each thing requires people of merit that can do the work to do them. Then it comes down to labor allocation: how do you assign people to work at such tasks? Do they do it because they are interested, or are forced? How do you distribute wealth? According to the work put forth? According to party affiliation or views?

For government, I think we have to separate what the government can provide, and what they legislate what should be provided. For example, what difference does it make if the government runs an education monopoly or if the government requires everyone is educated and provides vouchers? In both examples, every studen is being taught. But in only one of them, is there competition among schools which invariably provides better education (at least in America, this is the case).

The thing about life is that under any government, life will never be fair because people are flawed. The argument, then, should be to mitigate the risk of it being unfair to the highest majority of people. I believe (and so do others) that the best way to mitigate this risk is to create a society and extention of that society (in government) that insures that each person has the drive to create and maintain value in that society.

That can be done by ensuring that people can create, maintain, and use their value as they wish with limited intrusion by others - by government (through opressive laws) and people (by protective laws). The idea behind this is that people are inherantly limitless in their potential, as well as limitless in their evil - therefore we must ensure that those that are good create value, while the bad do not create value, and are forced to change or else have less than their peers. Under a heavily socialistic system, people are viewed as equals, assuming that man is inherantly of the same value and always good.

Through history, we can see that the less represive a government has been, the people have been better off. You can look at the lifestyle of people in Pol Pot's Cambodia, Hitler's Germany, Mao's China, JFK's America, Thatcher's Britian, Stalin's Soviet Union, and many other nations to realize that those who are freer have a people that create more and live better.

So then in the end, what happens with the minority? Those that cannot create value? There are 2 things that the capitalistic system does:

1. It ensures that those that those milking the system are severely limited, as the best way out of a bad situation is to create a value to get out of having no value
2. The society is free to decide how best to help those. If the government chooses to do it, it can be done out of a position of knowing that those that truly need help, are there to be helped (again, rather than those milking the system), also it encourages the public to help out the needy as they have the extra capital to invest in helping those people. 

That is the way I look at it, at least. I believe man is intristically evil, therefore no one should be in a position to take great authority over others' economy, lifestyle or decisions. By building a larger government, we invite more intervention in our lives. When we demand a smaller government, we ask for more responsibility of the people. I think that only through personal responsibility, and accountability to our peers, our families, our co-workers, and our church (if you go to one) that we can create a better nation.

@coolest guy: You stole my no socialist line!