The horrid shooting in Las Vegas on October 1st has predictably caused every gun-grabber's knee to jerk, and his voice and pen to screech for yet more gun-control laws, and here we are, contemplating a society with no laws at all, since no government will exist to write them. Won't there, therefore, be a rash of mass killings, and mayhem run amok? Archists everywhere say so.
Not exactly, and let's consider why.
First, notice that laws are useless. All they do is to publish what the government's opinion is about the matter, and what it will do. For example it doesn't approve of murder (unless it, the government, is doing it and then it calls it by the different name of "war") and will kill or cage you if you do it; but that tells us nothing about the ethics of taking a human life. In contrast, anarchists recognize that to kill someone is to deny him or her entirely his fundamental right of self ownership, and for that reason it is grossly immoral. We abstain from it not because it may bring adverse consequences but because, by exactly that reasoning, it's wrong. It violates our own, highest and rationally-derived life-principle.
Now, the process of producing a zero government society necessitates universal re-education, so that everyone in it knows of that fundamental premise and accepts it. It won't be possible to exclude a handful who reject the education, but the overwhelming majority will see how right it is and embrace it - and the ZGS won't exist until they do. Therefore, the ZGS will consist almost wholly of people who respect the self-ownership rights of everyone else.
That's the first reason why murder rates will plunge, as will those of all other krimes.
A second reason is that the incidence of discontent will also plunge, and various kinds of dissatisfaction with the state of one's life form the motivation for many crimes. Some trapped in poverty by laws that forbid the hiring of those whose labor is not worth a certain minimum are so enraged by that injustice that they go out and steal. Some of the many who are so whelmed by the impersonal forces that control their lives that they lose self-respect and hit out, perhaps by committing a spectacular crime; this may (or may not) have been Stephen Paddock's motivation. But in the coming ZGS, each person will have full control of his own destiny, so that great dissatisfaction also will occur much less often. And of course the absence of laws regulating commerce will allow such massive growth in prosperity that material contentment will vastly increase.
Then a third reason is that, there being no anti-gun laws to hinder them, very many people will carry handguns around with them, and be able to limit the damage done by any killer they happen to encounter. This would have applied on 9/11, had several of the airplane passengers been armed, to the school shooting at Sandy Hook, to the Columbine killer, to the Aurora theater shooting, and many others; I thought at first that the shooter in Vegas was at ground level and so that it would have applied there. Of course I was wrong; Paddock had placed himself out of range. But in the general case, widespread gun ownership in the ZGS will prevent a large part of such loss of life as is still experienced.
Come, then, to Paddock; and I assume for now that the information about him published by government spokesmen and by media effectively controlled by government, is true. That is a risky assumption; we have only the word of those habitual liars that Mr Paddock was even involved. His brother Eric says he was dumbstruck by the news; he could not imagine his own brother doing such a thing. But none of us can peer into someone else's head, so let's presume that he was in fact the perp.
Reports available at this writing say he was not hard-up. Retired from accounting, he successfully gambled, and made several million dealing in real estate. Those are notable achievements. He could pilot a plane, and had access to two; that too is a considerable skill. He enjoyed country music. He did have a couple of divorces in his past, but that is not unusual. All told, at age 64 he had good reason to be satisfied with life. The only negative I saw was a report by a sister of his girl friend that he treated her rudely and disrespectfully; and yet she loved him. Oh, and that his father had been a bank robber.
Even so, he set about carefully planning to kill himself and as many others as he could take with him, using machine guns from a firing position high above a country-music audience. His armory was extensive and about the only plan element that failed was that the guns smoked so much as to set off the fire alarm, leading police to his hotel room less slowly than otherwise. Now, given that he could easily have killed many more than 58 in that crowd by packing one of his airplanes with fuel and explosives and crashing it into its densest portion, I deduce that he wanted in his final moments not just to slaughter many, but to enjoy the sight of them trying to jump out of the way of his hail of bullets; that sight must have given his twisted mind an incredibly intense power "high."
So his choice of the manner of the murders suggests to me that he was a power freak, and despite his material success in life he wasn't getting enough of it - so he decided to die while obtaining that kind of a rush. All government people are also power freaks, so he had at least that in common with them; they too satiate their hunger for power by slaughtering large numbers of innocent people, in their interminable wars. If only they would lead from the front, their end might sometimes resemble his.
These are still early days, and more information may reveal a different motivation; perhaps he had an undiagnosed mental illness, or perhaps he was affected by drugs, prescribed or otherwise. But don't hold your breath; 51 years after the UT Tower Murders, there is no explanation of why Charles Whitman shot dead 16 people, other than that he experienced "violent impulses" (duh!) and that he had a small tumor on his brain that some (but not all) "experts" say may have been a factor.
Jack Kerwick has suggested Paddock was a Leftie outraged by the Trump win last year, eagerly assassinating The Donald's supporters (for whom the country music fans were a surrogate.) Perhaps, but I doubt it. First, that would mean that the FedGov and Big Media were lying about Paddock being a fan of such music himself, and about him having no strong political affiliation. Further, since such Democrat crybabies are known neither as gun enthusiasts nor for offing themselves, they'd have to be lying about Paddock being found dead in his room. In fact, it would probably mean they fabricated the entire story; that someone else did the shooting as a false-flag job and walked out of the Mandalay Bay very much alive.
And all that could not possibly be true. Could it?