Total Posts:134|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

- Minarchism -

Lionheart
Posts: 520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2011 3:15:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Minarchism (sometimes called minimal statism, small government, or limited-government libertarianism) is a libertarian political ideology which maintains that the state's only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud.


http://en.wikipedia.org...

I think this would be a great form of government.

Thoughts?
"Knowing others is intelligence;
knowing yourself is true wisdom.
Mastering others is strength;
mastering yourself is true power."


- Lionheart -
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2011 3:16:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
That's an odd position for a supporter of Minimum Wage laws to take.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Lionheart
Posts: 520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2011 3:43:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Yeah, maybe you are right. I feel conflicted with my own thoughts towards politics at this time in my life.

I feel like a lost soul drifting from shore to shore in the realm of politics. Breathing in the attitude...the people...the ideals...the perspective.... Then drifting to the next shore, until I find the place I have been searching for.

I am looking for my political home.
"Knowing others is intelligence;
knowing yourself is true wisdom.
Mastering others is strength;
mastering yourself is true power."


- Lionheart -
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2011 3:45:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/11/2011 3:15:48 PM, Lionheart wrote:
Minarchism (sometimes called minimal statism, small government, or limited-government libertarianism) is a libertarian political ideology which maintains that the state's only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud.


http://en.wikipedia.org...

I think this would be a great form of government.

Thoughts?

So you think only government should be able to steal from individuals?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2011 3:49:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/11/2011 3:45:45 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 5/11/2011 3:15:48 PM, Lionheart wrote:
Minarchism (sometimes called minimal statism, small government, or limited-government libertarianism) is a libertarian political ideology which maintains that the state's only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud.


http://en.wikipedia.org...

I think this would be a great form of government.

Thoughts?

So you think only government should be able to steal from individuals?

Where in the OP did you find theft happening?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2011 3:51:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/11/2011 3:15:48 PM, Lionheart wrote:
Minarchism (sometimes called minimal statism, small government, or limited-government libertarianism) is a libertarian political ideology which maintains that the state's only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud.


http://en.wikipedia.org...

I think this would be a great form of government.

Thoughts?

If you can criticize markets for allegedly allowing monopolies to develop, why would you justify a monopoly in one of the most critical areas of life (i.e. defense and arbitration)?
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2011 3:59:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/11/2011 3:51:22 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/11/2011 3:15:48 PM, Lionheart wrote:
Minarchism (sometimes called minimal statism, small government, or limited-government libertarianism) is a libertarian political ideology which maintains that the state's only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud.


http://en.wikipedia.org...

I think this would be a great form of government.

Thoughts?

If you can criticize markets for allegedly allowing monopolies to develop, why would you justify a monopoly in one of the most critical areas of life (i.e. defense and arbitration)?

Because a government is controlled by the people, a corporation is not (though it can be controlled by a government, which is in turn controlled by the people).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2011 4:00:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/11/2011 3:49:39 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 5/11/2011 3:45:45 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 5/11/2011 3:15:48 PM, Lionheart wrote:
Minarchism (sometimes called minimal statism, small government, or limited-government libertarianism) is a libertarian political ideology which maintains that the state's only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud.


http://en.wikipedia.org...

I think this would be a great form of government.

Thoughts?

So you think only government should be able to steal from individuals?

Where in the OP did you find theft happening?

He probably defines tax as theft. Kind of like if I go to a store, get a service or product, them making me pay for that service/product is also theft.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2011 4:04:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/11/2011 4:00:54 PM, OreEle wrote:
He probably defines tax as theft. Kind of like if I go to a store, get a service or product, them making me pay for that service/product is also theft.

Do you really think that comparison is at all analogous? Your likening compulsory tribute to a voluntary transaction. I assume that if I write up a resolution "Taxation is theft," you'll accept it and defend your analogy?
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2011 4:05:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/11/2011 4:00:54 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/11/2011 3:49:39 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 5/11/2011 3:45:45 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 5/11/2011 3:15:48 PM, Lionheart wrote:
Minarchism (sometimes called minimal statism, small government, or limited-government libertarianism) is a libertarian political ideology which maintains that the state's only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud.


http://en.wikipedia.org...

I think this would be a great form of government.

Thoughts?

So you think only government should be able to steal from individuals?

Where in the OP did you find theft happening?

He probably defines tax as theft. Kind of like if I go to a store, get a service or product, them making me pay for that service/product is also theft.

or how you've to pay your landlord rent.
signature
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2011 4:06:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/11/2011 4:04:45 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 5/11/2011 4:00:54 PM, OreEle wrote:
He probably defines tax as theft. Kind of like if I go to a store, get a service or product, them making me pay for that service/product is also theft.

Do you really think that comparison is at all analogous? Your likening compulsory tribute to a voluntary transaction. I assume that if I write up a resolution "Taxation is theft," you'll accept it and defend your analogy?

the rent one's not too bad though do you think? :)
signature
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2011 4:07:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/11/2011 3:59:49 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/11/2011 3:51:22 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/11/2011 3:15:48 PM, Lionheart wrote:
Minarchism (sometimes called minimal statism, small government, or limited-government libertarianism) is a libertarian political ideology which maintains that the state's only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud.


http://en.wikipedia.org...

I think this would be a great form of government.

Thoughts?

If you can criticize markets for allegedly allowing monopolies to develop, why would you justify a monopoly in one of the most critical areas of life (i.e. defense and arbitration)?

Because a government is controlled by the people

No it isn't. Its agents are autonomous, though they do, to a pretty big extent, get to set their own rules. The only thing that people do is elect the people who get to make the rules, which isn't the same as direct control.

Second, I already told you it isn't "the people". Unless you can somehow demonstrate that unanimity exists, or that humans are a perpetually-unified hive mind, it will always be the case that some people are imposing themselves on other people, whether those people are voters or state agents themselves. All that crap about "the people" is just naive nonsense that doesn't reflect the reality of how political power works.

Finally, that doesn't answer the question of how a monopoly is justified in the case of the state, but not in the case of a company. It's special pleading that isn't justified by an appeal to democracy.

a corporation is not (though it can be controlled by a government, which is in turn controlled by the people).

Corporations only exist because of state action: specifically, granting articles of incorporation. And, yeah, states can control corporations, but it's economically retarded.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2011 4:09:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/11/2011 4:04:45 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 5/11/2011 4:00:54 PM, OreEle wrote:
He probably defines tax as theft. Kind of like if I go to a store, get a service or product, them making me pay for that service/product is also theft.

Do you really think that comparison is at all analogous? Your likening compulsory tribute to a voluntary transaction. I assume that if I write up a resolution "Taxation is theft," you'll accept it and defend your analogy?

You beat me to it.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2011 4:11:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/11/2011 4:07:57 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/11/2011 3:59:49 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/11/2011 3:51:22 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/11/2011 3:15:48 PM, Lionheart wrote:
Minarchism (sometimes called minimal statism, small government, or limited-government libertarianism) is a libertarian political ideology which maintains that the state's only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud.


http://en.wikipedia.org...

I think this would be a great form of government.

Thoughts?

If you can criticize markets for allegedly allowing monopolies to develop, why would you justify a monopoly in one of the most critical areas of life (i.e. defense and arbitration)?

Because a government is controlled by the people

No it isn't. Its agents are autonomous, though they do, to a pretty big extent, get to set their own rules. The only thing that people do is elect the people who get to make the rules, which isn't the same as direct control.

Second, I already told you it isn't "the people". Unless you can somehow demonstrate that unanimity exists, or that humans are a perpetually-unified hive mind, it will always be the case that some people are imposing themselves on other people, whether those people are voters or state agents themselves. All that crap about "the people" is just naive nonsense that doesn't reflect the reality of how political power works.

Finally, that doesn't answer the question of how a monopoly is justified in the case of the state, but not in the case of a company. It's special pleading that isn't justified by an appeal to democracy.

a corporation is not (though it can be controlled by a government, which is in turn controlled by the people).

Corporations only exist because of state action: specifically, granting articles of incorporation. And, yeah, states can control corporations, but it's economically retarded.

Also, you can choose to walk away from a monopoly, it has no power over you.

A government monopoly can put you in jail and water board you and no one would know.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2011 4:11:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/11/2011 4:09:03 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 5/11/2011 4:04:45 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 5/11/2011 4:00:54 PM, OreEle wrote:
He probably defines tax as theft. Kind of like if I go to a store, get a service or product, them making me pay for that service/product is also theft.

Do you really think that comparison is at all analogous? Your likening compulsory tribute to a voluntary transaction. I assume that if I write up a resolution "Taxation is theft," you'll accept it and defend your analogy?

You beat me to it.

I mean, technically, you could have a Ragnar-esque minarchy wherein all payment is voluntary. At that point, though, there's no reason to favor a monopoly over private alternatives if it's all based on voluntarism anyway.
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2011 4:14:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/11/2011 4:11:02 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 5/11/2011 4:07:57 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/11/2011 3:59:49 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/11/2011 3:51:22 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/11/2011 3:15:48 PM, Lionheart wrote:
Minarchism (sometimes called minimal statism, small government, or limited-government libertarianism) is a libertarian political ideology which maintains that the state's only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud.


http://en.wikipedia.org...

I think this would be a great form of government.

Thoughts?

If you can criticize markets for allegedly allowing monopolies to develop, why would you justify a monopoly in one of the most critical areas of life (i.e. defense and arbitration)?

Because a government is controlled by the people

No it isn't. Its agents are autonomous, though they do, to a pretty big extent, get to set their own rules. The only thing that people do is elect the people who get to make the rules, which isn't the same as direct control.

Second, I already told you it isn't "the people". Unless you can somehow demonstrate that unanimity exists, or that humans are a perpetually-unified hive mind, it will always be the case that some people are imposing themselves on other people, whether those people are voters or state agents themselves. All that crap about "the people" is just naive nonsense that doesn't reflect the reality of how political power works.

Finally, that doesn't answer the question of how a monopoly is justified in the case of the state, but not in the case of a company. It's special pleading that isn't justified by an appeal to democracy.

a corporation is not (though it can be controlled by a government, which is in turn controlled by the people).

Corporations only exist because of state action: specifically, granting articles of incorporation. And, yeah, states can control corporations, but it's economically retarded.

Also, you can choose to walk away from a monopoly, it has no power over you.

besides all that power it has in being a monopoly while you're just one person?

A government monopoly can put you in jail and water board you and no one would know.

why couldn't another type of monopoly do that in the absence of government?

majority rule is the only way to do it i figure. present another someone?
signature
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2011 4:15:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/11/2011 4:11:02 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 5/11/2011 4:07:57 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/11/2011 3:59:49 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/11/2011 3:51:22 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/11/2011 3:15:48 PM, Lionheart wrote:
Minarchism (sometimes called minimal statism, small government, or limited-government libertarianism) is a libertarian political ideology which maintains that the state's only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud.


http://en.wikipedia.org...

I think this would be a great form of government.

Thoughts?

If you can criticize markets for allegedly allowing monopolies to develop, why would you justify a monopoly in one of the most critical areas of life (i.e. defense and arbitration)?

Because a government is controlled by the people

No it isn't. Its agents are autonomous, though they do, to a pretty big extent, get to set their own rules. The only thing that people do is elect the people who get to make the rules, which isn't the same as direct control.

Second, I already told you it isn't "the people". Unless you can somehow demonstrate that unanimity exists, or that humans are a perpetually-unified hive mind, it will always be the case that some people are imposing themselves on other people, whether those people are voters or state agents themselves. All that crap about "the people" is just naive nonsense that doesn't reflect the reality of how political power works.

Finally, that doesn't answer the question of how a monopoly is justified in the case of the state, but not in the case of a company. It's special pleading that isn't justified by an appeal to democracy.

a corporation is not (though it can be controlled by a government, which is in turn controlled by the people).

Corporations only exist because of state action: specifically, granting articles of incorporation. And, yeah, states can control corporations, but it's economically retarded.

Also, you can choose to walk away from a monopoly, it has no power over you.

A government monopoly can put you in jail and water board you and no one would know.

Well, you can make the whole "if you don't like it, leave" argument, but there are a couple problems with that. First, if you're trying to justify oppression, pointing out that they can just uproot their whole life and run isn't a very good way of pointing out that an expansive state is as warm and fuzzy as you're proposing.

Second, it's sort of stupid when statists make the exact same argument against free-market advocates who argue that, if you don't like the conditions of a job, there are plenty of firms at which you could potentially work. Except capitalists don't argue that you have to sell your house, leave your friends and live, and travel to a different country to escape violence and invasion by a coercive monopoly. They just argue that you might quit and work at a different office.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2011 4:15:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/11/2011 3:59:49 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/11/2011 3:51:22 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/11/2011 3:15:48 PM, Lionheart wrote:
Minarchism (sometimes called minimal statism, small government, or limited-government libertarianism) is a libertarian political ideology which maintains that the state's only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud.


http://en.wikipedia.org...

I think this would be a great form of government.

Thoughts?

If you can criticize markets for allegedly allowing monopolies to develop, why would you justify a monopoly in one of the most critical areas of life (i.e. defense and arbitration)?

Because a government is controlled by the people, a corporation is not (though it can be controlled by a government, which is in turn controlled by the people).

Private companies won't come to your house and haul you off to jail for not paying your "protection money".
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2011 4:18:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/11/2011 4:15:30 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/11/2011 4:11:02 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 5/11/2011 4:07:57 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/11/2011 3:59:49 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/11/2011 3:51:22 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/11/2011 3:15:48 PM, Lionheart wrote:
Minarchism (sometimes called minimal statism, small government, or limited-government libertarianism) is a libertarian political ideology which maintains that the state's only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud.


http://en.wikipedia.org...

I think this would be a great form of government.

Thoughts?

If you can criticize markets for allegedly allowing monopolies to develop, why would you justify a monopoly in one of the most critical areas of life (i.e. defense and arbitration)?

Because a government is controlled by the people

No it isn't. Its agents are autonomous, though they do, to a pretty big extent, get to set their own rules. The only thing that people do is elect the people who get to make the rules, which isn't the same as direct control.

Second, I already told you it isn't "the people". Unless you can somehow demonstrate that unanimity exists, or that humans are a perpetually-unified hive mind, it will always be the case that some people are imposing themselves on other people, whether those people are voters or state agents themselves. All that crap about "the people" is just naive nonsense that doesn't reflect the reality of how political power works.

Finally, that doesn't answer the question of how a monopoly is justified in the case of the state, but not in the case of a company. It's special pleading that isn't justified by an appeal to democracy.

a corporation is not (though it can be controlled by a government, which is in turn controlled by the people).

Corporations only exist because of state action: specifically, granting articles of incorporation. And, yeah, states can control corporations, but it's economically retarded.

Also, you can choose to walk away from a monopoly, it has no power over you.

A government monopoly can put you in jail and water board you and no one would know.

Well, you can make the whole "if you don't like it, leave" argument, but there are a couple problems with that. First, if you're trying to justify oppression, pointing out that they can just uproot their whole life and run isn't a very good way of pointing out that an expansive state is as warm and fuzzy as you're proposing.

Second, it's sort of stupid when statists make the exact same argument against free-market advocates who argue that, if you don't like the conditions of a job, there are plenty of firms at which you could potentially work. Except capitalists don't argue that you have to sell your house, leave your friends and live, and travel to a different country to escape violence and invasion by a coercive monopoly. They just argue that you might quit and work at a different office.

no rule at all then.. besides money.
signature
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2011 4:19:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/11/2011 4:19:14 PM, badger wrote:
so in a capitalist's ideal world, if you're rich enough you can murder and rape who you want?

or even if whoever it is hasn't the cash to protect themselves...?
signature
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2011 4:21:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/11/2011 4:19:55 PM, badger wrote:
At 5/11/2011 4:19:14 PM, badger wrote:
so in a capitalist's ideal world, if you're rich enough you can murder and rape who you want?

or even if whoever it is hasn't the cash to protect themselves...?

In a capitalist society, you would have more than one monopolistic option regarding how you protect your interests.
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2011 4:22:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/11/2011 4:21:17 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/11/2011 4:19:55 PM, badger wrote:
At 5/11/2011 4:19:14 PM, badger wrote:
so in a capitalist's ideal world, if you're rich enough you can murder and rape who you want?

or even if whoever it is hasn't the cash to protect themselves...?

In a capitalist society, you would have more than one monopolistic option regarding how you protect your interests.

what if you were flat broke? or whoever it was that might harm you was super rich? then what options would you have? commit suicide or be raped?
signature
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2011 4:25:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/11/2011 4:22:35 PM, badger wrote:
At 5/11/2011 4:21:17 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/11/2011 4:19:55 PM, badger wrote:
At 5/11/2011 4:19:14 PM, badger wrote:
so in a capitalist's ideal world, if you're rich enough you can murder and rape who you want?

or even if whoever it is hasn't the cash to protect themselves...?

In a capitalist society, you would have more than one monopolistic option regarding how you protect your interests.

what if you were flat broke?

Then you might try getting a job. Or a loan. To be broke, jobless, with credit so bad you can't even get a shady loan (from a bank, a friend, a loved one, etc.), you have to have really screwed up.

or whoever it was that might harm you was super rich? then what options would you have? commit suicide or be raped?

Uh, no... Someone's having money doesn't automatically give them the power to do whatever they want. It gives them more purchasing power, but the two aren't inherently equivalent.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2011 4:29:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/11/2011 4:04:45 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 5/11/2011 4:00:54 PM, OreEle wrote:
He probably defines tax as theft. Kind of like if I go to a store, get a service or product, them making me pay for that service/product is also theft.

Do you really think that comparison is at all analogous? Your likening compulsory tribute to a voluntary transaction. I assume that if I write up a resolution "Taxation is theft," you'll accept it and defend your analogy?

When you use absolutely governmental no services at all, no public roads, no public education, no nothing, I'll support you not having to pay a dime of taxes.

But just because there is only 1 grocery store in range, doesn't mean you get to get your food there without paying the price.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Lionheart
Posts: 520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2011 4:30:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
"A government monopoly can put you in jail and water board you and no one would know"

A private defense force could do the same. But at least it would be easier to demand transparency on the government when you only have a small number of things to demand transparency on. Besides, small government is way better than big government in my opinion.

Any private defense contractor could rise to the status of what you are calling a government monopoly over defense... Who is to stop them? Another private defense contractor? I wonder how that would play out for the people...war.

"Private companies won't come to your house and haul you off to jail for not paying your "protection money."


Really? Says who? A private defense contractor could definitely come to your house do what they feel necessary if you don't pay. That's how it works without a defense that is put into power "by the people". Private defense companies could do what they want with no regard for the nation as a whole.

That is why Minarchism is efficient. A defense system for the entire nation that is controlled by "the people" is the only way to keep the populace truly protected. Otherwise we will be back to the dark ages of medieval times, except with more powerful weaponry.
"Knowing others is intelligence;
knowing yourself is true wisdom.
Mastering others is strength;
mastering yourself is true power."


- Lionheart -
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2011 4:34:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/11/2011 4:25:09 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/11/2011 4:22:35 PM, badger wrote:
At 5/11/2011 4:21:17 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/11/2011 4:19:55 PM, badger wrote:
At 5/11/2011 4:19:14 PM, badger wrote:
so in a capitalist's ideal world, if you're rich enough you can murder and rape who you want?

or even if whoever it is hasn't the cash to protect themselves...?

In a capitalist society, you would have more than one monopolistic option regarding how you protect your interests.

what if you were flat broke?

Then you might try getting a job. Or a loan. To be broke, jobless, with credit so bad you can't even get a shady loan (from a bank, a friend, a loved one, etc.), you have to have really screwed up.

you surely agree the divide between the rich and the poor would be great in a purely capitalist world? it's kinda how it works, no? you don't think you'd just be handing the world over to the rich? at least now we've politicians that need bribed/assassinated first.

or whoever it was that might harm you was super rich? then what options would you have? commit suicide or be raped?

Uh, no... Someone's having money doesn't automatically give them the power to do whatever they want. It gives them more purchasing power, but the two aren't inherently equivalent.

not in our world, where there're establishments like countries' goverments to stand in its way/need purchasing first.. but without them then yes they are. majority of the money would grant you rule of the world pretty much. why wouldn't you think so? money makes the world go round after all? what if it was the owner of the leading protection agency went on serial killing spree? who'd stop him? what'd pay them to?
signature