3 ms·
Can you? I mean, at that point, you're basically deciding that a people are not allowed to self govern themselves.
by st3v3r 10y ago
Can you? I mean, at that point, you're basically deciding that a people are not allowed to self govern themselves.
- zeveb 10y agoAlternatively, it's existing-industry-protecting rules which have basically decided that people are not allowed to govern themselves. After all, without those rules people would be free to only patronise barbers who have acquired licenses, taxi drivers who belong to a cartel &c. Working around that is deciding that people aren't allowed to govern others.
- TeMPOraL 10y ago> After all, without those rules people would be free to only patronise barbers who have acquired licenses, taxi drivers who belong to a cartel &c. And would then get screwed by them so badly they'd ask for those rules back. After all that's how they got introduced in the first place - to protect people from "entrepreneurs" who will happily exploit them. That said, this subthread is also a nice example of how one can rationalize both sides in a way that sounds morally bearable :).
- hueving 10y agoYes, it's very easy to operate within personal moral boundaries when you fundamentally believe existing government laws support immoral stances. (e.g. drug dealers selling people marijuana for pain relief or people refusing to transact with slave owners)