3 ms·

I'm not sure what you're arguing against there. Nobody is advocating or even talking about relinquishing the state's monopoly on violence.

• JumpCrisscross 10y ago
  > I'm not sure what you're arguing against The top commenter analogized, jestfully, legalizing homicide with legalizing cybercrime [1]. A second comment said this comparison was unfair [2]. My comment [3] responds to that second comment. In essence, if a state's claim to a monopoly on violence is legitimate, then its claim to protecting property rights is (almost) as valid. Thus, advocating a dissolution of the latter, e.g. legalizing cybercrime, can be compared, as a legal argumentum ad absurdum, with permitting murder. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13266097 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13266097 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13266146 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13266146 [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13266749 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13266749
  • darawk 10y ago
    But nobody is advocating that the state relinquish the right to protect property. They aren't making a philosophical argument about rights and laws of nature. They are making a practical case that, it may not make sense for the government to protect cyber property specifically. And that they make that determination on the basis of practical considerations. They aren't relinquishing their theoretical right to control it. They are simply choosing not to for practical reasons.