Legitimate Violence?

re: Legitimate Violence?

JonBostwick — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 01:56:10 GMT

Thanks for the feed back.

JAlanKatz,

2. is how all new government functions are justified.

"The Political Method is used to do this, why can't it do this other important thing?"

re: Legitimate Violence?

Stanislaw — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 23:10:58 GMT

naah, where I come from nobody calls classic liberals libertarians.

re: Legitimate Violence?

Jim OConnor — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 22:32:05 GMT

For me the minarchist view was a comfortable resting place on the path to realizing that a state reduced to a couple functions can be reduced further, and the world better off for it. I would have had a hard time emotionally accepting the anarcho-capitalist position cold-turkey.

Since we're brainwashed from birth about the absolute necessity of the State trying to make the jump can be quite uncomfortable.

I agree that if we were to attain anarcho-capitalism it would be huge mistake to then decide to go to minarchism as an "improvement". We've seen how well that works.

re: Legitimate Violence?

JAlanKatz — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 21:41:04 GMT

Among the fallacies related to this view:

1-The government is instituted to protect private property - that is, to ensure that people who own property get to keep this. To do so, the government takes away private property.

2-The miniarchist view seems to defeat itself, or at least contradict itself, in this way - it is deemed proper to provide protection, but not to assist people in other ways, such as when a hurricane knocks over their house. So here I am, instead of facing a hurricane, facing a mugger. I am able to demand that you protect me, on this view, and you must - legally - do so. So why not for protection against other misfortunes?

3-Why protect private property at all, seeing as how it is just conditional once we accept the existence of the state?