You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: From Baghdad to Pyongyang: Is war coming to your door next?
A fire department is a government organization that does more good than harm. It saves lives, property and money.
A fire department is a government organization that does more good than harm. It saves lives, property and money.
Yep, and the private market can provide the same services without forcing them on individuals without consent.
I am sure you believe that all legitimate transactions are consensual, right?
Actually, the private market won't provide the same service. Presumably, private companies would only put out fires in buildings of their customers. This means that fires elsewhere can spread to neighboring buildings, causing much more damage than they would otherwise cause.
And you still haven't answered my question about monopolistic "security" companies. You say people wouldn't use that service, but that's nonsense. Many people want security at any price, and they will support this company.
So, how do you answer this?
I have indeed answered it. In your scenario, where people magically all agree to utilize an abusive service, you end up effectively with a new government. Your argument is that government is good and necessary, but that it would be bad if we ended up with a government (security monopoly). It's a self-detonating argument.
People will utilize the service because they have no other option for security.
Anyway, a pure monopoly and a government are not quite the same.
Government has the advantage of potentially resolving tyrannies by nonviolent political means. For all of statisms disadvantages, this capacity for political solutions is one advantage.
Also, I don't know if you believe in equal dignity among humans, but if you do then how does the anarchist system fit that belief? You're exchanging the system of 1 person / 1 vote, for a system of $1 / 1 vote.
When did I advocate voting/mob rule?
So you're not for democracy. That's fine. I'd like to see a system that works better.
What is a historical proof of concept for your theory of anarchy?
There are a few examples in history, and a plethora of modern ones, but that doesn't matter, because even with no examples, I would still be correct, as forcing a non-violent individual to do or pay for something involuntarily (no consent) they do not wish do (as is done when a majority outvotes a minority) in a democracy is obviously immoral.
Besides, your contention is that if it's not historically proven, it cannot be right. That's silly. The abolition of slavery was not "historically proven," either. Should people have required historical proof before ending it?
Why wouldn't demand equate to service in a free economy?
Even as it stands today, there are districts and wards, covered by distinct departments. The private sector already works this way, too, in other fields, regarding private property.
There is no reason why complete privatization would discourage protection. To the contrary, it would make it all the more efficient, cutting out the middleman and red tape.
You are arguing in hypotheticals. I am telling you it is morally illegitimate to extort funds non-consensually (taxation) in order to fund any business, regardless of the quality of service.
Well we have different morals, clearly. That's fine, you're entitled to yours as I'm entitled to mine.
I don't really understand why everything is either black or white in your morality. Mine includes shades of gray, which include taxation for some purposes.
Morality aside, I'm sure you'll agree that a contiguous coverage of fire services is more efficient, given that fire travels contiguously. So we should hope that in either system, the fire coverage is contiguous.
I did not claim everything was black and white in "my morality." If you think that sometimes innocent lives being taken is justified you are a dangerous individual, and a fool.
What is an example of a moral gray area for you?
Defining legitimate self-defense, for example, in the case of trespassing. Different situations would and would not merit certain actions. Just one example of many.