4 ms·

Law is violent coercion. This isn’t libertarian philosophy class, it’s the real world. In many places in the real world, universal government insurance is alre

by fogzen 8y ago

Law is violent coercion. This isn’t libertarian philosophy class, it’s the real world. In many places in the real world, universal government insurance is already in place. This isn’t some hypothetical.

Consultant32452 8y ago
The fact that some people or nations behave in a particular way does not in any way determine whether that behavior is moral.
- aninhumer 8y ago
  No, but the fact that it results in demonstrably better outcomes in pretty much every case does.
- ordinaryradical 8y ago
  States in and of themselves aren’t moral under your framework because they can only exist by threat and use of force. But some of us are interested in solutions for the real world instead of the debating the merits of unfeasible utopias. I, too, would enjoy a stateless peaceful utopia of equitable commerce, but that has zero bearing on how we should decide public policy. Foraging for utopias is the same kind of naïveté Marxists trot out again and again and were it ever enacted at scale it would lead to the same kind of human suffering.
  - Consultant32452 8y ago
    Let's bring this back to the topic at hand. We have the entire history of the US up until the 1940s where the government had basically no say in healthcare and there was nothing like the scale of human suffering brought about by Marxists. FWIW I don't support stateless anarchy/utopia, but when we grant someone a monopoly on force, it's rational to keep their power to a bare minimum.
    - RobertoG 8y ago
      Fair enough. What is that minimum? The proposed minimum is always to grant the needed power to cover unlimited property rights, but not universal healthcare.
      - Consultant32452 8y ago
        It would be difficult to impossible for me to try to think of every feasible scenario in a HN post, but here's some off the top of my head: national defense, stopping people from physically harming others, enforce voting rights, establish trade agreements with other nations, etc.

by fogzen 8y ago

Consultant32452 8y ago

The fact that some people or nations behave in a particular way does not in any way determine whether that behavior is moral.

aninhumer 8y ago
No, but the fact that it results in demonstrably better outcomes in pretty much every case does.
ordinaryradical 8y ago
States in and of themselves aren’t moral under your framework because they can only exist by threat and use of force. But some of us are interested in solutions for the real world instead of the debating the merits of unfeasible utopias. I, too, would enjoy a stateless peaceful utopia of equitable commerce, but that has zero bearing on how we should decide public policy. Foraging for utopias is the same kind of naïveté Marxists trot out again and again and were it ever enacted at scale it would lead to the same kind of human suffering.
- Consultant32452 8y ago
  Let's bring this back to the topic at hand. We have the entire history of the US up until the 1940s where the government had basically no say in healthcare and there was nothing like the scale of human suffering brought about by Marxists. FWIW I don't support stateless anarchy/utopia, but when we grant someone a monopoly on force, it's rational to keep their power to a bare minimum.
  - RobertoG 8y ago
    Fair enough. What is that minimum? The proposed minimum is always to grant the needed power to cover unlimited property rights, but not universal healthcare.
    - Consultant32452 8y ago
      It would be difficult to impossible for me to try to think of every feasible scenario in a HN post, but here's some off the top of my head: national defense, stopping people from physically harming others, enforce voting rights, establish trade agreements with other nations, etc.