You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: From Baghdad to Pyongyang: Is war coming to your door next?
That makes sense.
I just think that some form of government could be useful, if not necessary, in at least these two areas:
Common resources that cannot be owned, like oceans and atmosphere. Game Theory suggests that a Tragedy of the Commons would an inevitable outcome without intervention.
Intellectual property. Without intellectual property laws, any inventor must also be a manufacturer, or else risk no compensation for the labor of his/her mind.
Monopoly on violence. Without a judicial system, people will seek retribution on their own, which could increase violence.
The best reply I can give to these concerns is probably in the form of this video:
Also, you should google "Voluntaryism" or "Anarcho-Capitalism" and "private law society."
Either way, a monopoly on force is always immoral, as it denies some individuals their nature-conferred individual self-ownership, and affords it to agents of the state.
States that rely on non-voluntary taxation (all modern nation-states) are also morally illegitimate.
This is why, in my view, the details don't matter so much in the end, as wrong is wrong, and I don't believe in "necessary" evil.
Okay. What happens if a security firm in this video becomes a monopoly that will murder any and all competitors? That would be a situation with violence monopoly and no accountability, worse than government.
Also, let's not take terms like "crime" for granted. Without laws, mugging is not a crime.
Wrong is not wrong. There are varying degrees. It's worse to rape a baby than to litter, for example. This discussion needs nuance, or it cannot continue.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a HUGE fan of market economies, and a huge detractor of big government. We can certainly approach anarchy in an incremental way. I'm all for that, and for upholding the key value of liberty. I'm not for sudden dissolution of all government, and I'm far from convinced that we could completely obviate government.
You view the government as accountable?
By "wrong is wrong" I of course did not mean that all wrongs are the same.
I mean that just because the dissolution of an evil entity (the state) may come with some difficulties, these difficulties are not legitimate reasons or excuses to maintain the presence of said evil entity. It's evil. Period.
Private property owners should be the final determinants in what is or is not crime in a given area. This allows for freedom of association/dissociation.
Some may like to. I could say that slavery being ended all at once had its difficulties, too, but I fully support the immediate dissolution of that institution. Why? Because it is wrong, and immoral.
This is already happening now, under and because of the state.
If they murdered all competitors, what fool is going to utilize their service? You mean we would just have a government again, which is a bad thing. That's not a very strong argument for government.
Government is accountable through the democratic process, but I'm sure you know this.
There is an amount of government that does more good than harm.
You didn't answer what one could do in the case of a monopolistic security firm. People WILL use the firm because it's the only security offered.
Show me an example of a government that is actually accountable through said "democratic process" (mob rule) and does more good than harm.
And yes, I did answer that question, but I am fairly certain it was not the answer you were looking for.
You need to read some history, my friend.
"The state" has killed over 262 million humans in the last century alone, across the world, not counting war. The burden of proof for the "more good than harm" is on you, sad to say.
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.