4 ms·
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 solution
by 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 agoLet'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 agoFair 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 agoIt 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.