3 ms·

>Government is anti-thetical to self ownership. Government being the only reason ownership is possible without constantly fighting off invaders. Thank you laws

>Government is anti-thetical to self ownership. Government being the only reason ownership is possible without constantly fighting off invaders. Thank you laws.

0x445442 8y ago
> Government being the only reason ownership is possible Assertion not necessarily fact. There are other models one can imagine which would refute this claim.
- nickthemagicman 8y ago
  Would love to hear of an alternative way to enforce ownership given human beings incredibly bloody 10k years of history.
mindcrime 8y ago
That is a fair point, but it's leading us down the rabbit hole of debating exactly what we mean by "government". I say groups of individuals can choose to voluntarily band together to exercise what Bastiat described as "the collective extension to our individual innate right to self defense". You might say "but that is government". I on the other hand would say that the word "government" implies something more, based on how present day implementations of the term "government" function. The main distinction I would make is that, in practice, "governments" tend to arrogate to themselves the "authority" to do things that no individual could do themselves. And in my world-view, if an individual can't rightfully do something, then neither can a group of individuals, no matter how large. All of this is ultimately just me paraphrasing Bastiat, so for anyone who isn't already familiar with his works, and who finds anything interesting in this line of thinking, I suggest reading The Law[1]. [1]: http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html
- nickthemagicman 8y ago
  >And in my world-view, if an individual can't rightfully do something, then neither can a group of individuals, no matter how largebased organization. This is interesting idea. Do you have any examples of this incorrectly applied in modern times? At it's core the law takes away the permission to apply violence from your average person and puts it in the hands of supposedly fair/blind judges. From Bastiat: "It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all." So ultimately were making the same point I think about protection of property? You feel like the govt has crossed a boundary somewhere though and I'm curious where.
  - scotty79 8y ago
    > Do you have any examples of this incorrectly applied in modern times? Not sure about "rightfully" but groups of people are definitely treated more leniently as to what they can do. Individual when he kills more than 20 people usually doesn't get away with just a fine like GM did.
- scotty79 8y ago
  Government is the one that holds biggest most advanced gun and won't let anyone take it away from him. It's very useful to have as few governments as possible. Especially if range of their weapons overlap. It's also useful to have sharp difference between governments and non-governments. Both of those usefult things reduce likelihood of actually using biggest guns and that use severely harms everybody's business.

>Government is anti-thetical to self ownership. Government being the only reason ownership is possible without constantly fighting off invaders. Thank you laws.

0x445442 8y ago

> Government being the only reason ownership is possible Assertion not necessarily fact. There are other models one can imagine which would refute this claim.

nickthemagicman 8y ago
Would love to hear of an alternative way to enforce ownership given human beings incredibly bloody 10k years of history.

mindcrime 8y ago

That is a fair point, but it's leading us down the rabbit hole of debating exactly what we mean by "government". I say groups of individuals can choose to voluntarily band together to exercise what Bastiat described as "the collective extension to our individual innate right to self defense". You might say "but that is government". I on the other hand would say that the word "government" implies something more, based on how present day implementations of the term "government" function. The main distinction I would make is that, in practice, "governments" tend to arrogate to themselves the "authority" to do things that no individual could do themselves. And in my world-view, if an individual can't rightfully do something, then neither can a group of individuals, no matter how large. All of this is ultimately just me paraphrasing Bastiat, so for anyone who isn't already familiar with his works, and who finds anything interesting in this line of thinking, I suggest reading The Law[1]. [1]: http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

nickthemagicman 8y ago
>And in my world-view, if an individual can't rightfully do something, then neither can a group of individuals, no matter how largebased organization. This is interesting idea. Do you have any examples of this incorrectly applied in modern times? At it's core the law takes away the permission to apply violence from your average person and puts it in the hands of supposedly fair/blind judges. From Bastiat: "It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all." So ultimately were making the same point I think about protection of property? You feel like the govt has crossed a boundary somewhere though and I'm curious where.
- scotty79 8y ago
  > Do you have any examples of this incorrectly applied in modern times? Not sure about "rightfully" but groups of people are definitely treated more leniently as to what they can do. Individual when he kills more than 20 people usually doesn't get away with just a fine like GM did.
scotty79 8y ago
Government is the one that holds biggest most advanced gun and won't let anyone take it away from him. It's very useful to have as few governments as possible. Especially if range of their weapons overlap. It's also useful to have sharp difference between governments and non-governments. Both of those usefult things reduce likelihood of actually using biggest guns and that use severely harms everybody's business.