4 ms·

> Government monopoly on medical care. This is a bit surprising -- isn't it? If it is illegal for you to pay someone for anonymous health care then how can yo

> Government monopoly on medical care. This is a bit surprising -- isn't it? If it is illegal for you to pay someone for anonymous health care then how can your "Jews in the attic" receive health care? This is absurd. The government also has a monopoly on law enforcement, so if "Jews in the Attic" are victim of a crime how can they seek justice? From this premise, to suggest the government should not enforce laws is a non sequitor. This actually happens to undocumented immigrants: https://www.thisamericanlife.org/652/ice-capades/act-two-2 https://www.thisamericanlife.org/652/ice-capades/act-two-2

pdonis 8y ago
> The government also has a monopoly on law enforcement, so if "Jews in the Attic" are victim of a crime how can they seek justice? They can't. So by the proposed test, a government monopoly on law enforcement is a bad thing and should be opposed. If you ask "how can it be possible not to have a government monopoly on law enforcement?", note that historically that has been more often the norm than the system we have now. See, for example, David Friedman's The Machinery Of Freedom for a number of historical case studies. > From this premise, to suggest the government should not enforce laws is a non sequitor. No, it's a reason, as above, to not have the government have a monopoly on law enforcement.
- tacomonstrous 8y ago
  >See, for example, David Friedman's The Machinery Of Freedom for a number of historical case studies. Is it possible to give a reasonable summary of the thesis of this book? >No, it's a reason, as above, to not have the government have a monopoly on law enforcement. What is the definition of 'government' here? Also, whatever that definition is, it doesn't need a monopoly on law enforcement, but only some of the authority over it.
  - pdonis 8y ago
    > Is it possible to give a reasonable summary of the thesis of this book? I'm not sure, but I'll try: the main thesis is that many, if not most, if not all, of the functions we currently associate with conventional governments do not actually need to be provided by conventional governments; they can also be provided by private entities in a free market. Most of the book is trying to imagine and develop in detail how key functions, such as police, fire, and courts, might be provided in a system where conventional governments either did not exist or did not provide those functions. > What is the definition of 'government' here? Also, whatever that definition is, it doesn't need a monopoly on law enforcement, but only some of the authority over it. Different sources will use different definitions, which might lead to different answers to this. :-) A good starting point might be Friedman's definition: a government is an entity which everyone agrees is allowed to do things that, if any other entity did them, would be considered crimes. A common example is taxation: the government is allowed to take money from you whether you agree to give it or not, which would be theft if any other entity did it. A government under this definition might not need to have a monopoly on law enforcement, but it would need to have a monopoly on any actions required for law enforcement that would be crimes if another entity did them. (One common point of debate among different strains of libertarians is whether the set of such actions required for law enforcement is non-empty.)
- RandomInteger4 8y ago
  This is an asinine concept much in the same way that people being opposed to electric vehicles is an asinine concept. If the government didn't have a monopoly on law enforcement, what you'd end up with are rival gangs each enforcing the law in their own biased way, propogating the amount of injustice we're already dealing with, and decentralizing it, making it harder to fight. When you have a centralized source of law enforcement, you have a "single point of failure" that you can apply pressure to if it becomes corrupt, much in the same way that electric vehicles centralize the source of emissions making it easier to sequester. Decentralization is not a panacea. EDIT: That's not even considering the fact that without the government providing law enforcement, among other things, that many would be guaranteed to go without those things. Right now that may be the case for many with the current system, but at least that is fixable by, again, applying pressure to the single source to adequately provide those things. In a system where the free market is supposed to take care of this, many poor folks would go without. That used to be the case with fire fighters, but we soon learned that it was a bad idea for nobody to show up to fight the fires of the poor folk, because those fires would spread. Same goes for crime, disease, etc.
  - pdonis 8y ago
    > This is an asinine concept much in the same way that people being opposed to electric vehicles is an asinine concept. If this is your definition of "asinine concept", I think you need to re-examine your criteria. Not everyone who disagrees with your pet beliefs is asinine. > If the government didn't have a monopoly on law enforcement, what you'd end up with are rival gangs each enforcing the law in their own biased way, propogating the amount of injustice we're already dealing with, and decentralizing it, making it harder to fight. This claim is historically false. I referred elsewhere in this thread to David Friedman's Machinery Of Freedom, which gives a number of historical counterexamples. > When you have a centralized source of law enforcement, you have a "single point of failure" that you can apply pressure to if it becomes corrupt But you also have a single point of failure that special interests can apply pressure to to make it corrupt. Which, historically, is far more likely to happen than what you describe, because the special interests are concentrated while the people as a whole are dispersed and can't easily coordinate. > Decentralization is not a panacea. Nobody has claimed that it is. The fact that decentralization is not a perfect solution to all of society's problems is irrelevant to the point that decentralization, all things considered, is better (because it has less damaging failure modes).
benchaney 8y ago
The ability to seek justice isn't a necessity in the same way that medical care is. > From this premise, to suggest the government should not enforce laws is a non sequitor. That is correct, but I don't think it means what you think it means.
pdkl95 8y ago
Also, has anybody actually proposed making it "illegal for you to pay someone for anonymous health care"? The government funding some type of minimum health care doesn't mean they are actually providing the health care.

pdonis 8y ago

> The government also has a monopoly on law enforcement, so if "Jews in the Attic" are victim of a crime how can they seek justice? They can't. So by the proposed test, a government monopoly on law enforcement is a bad thing and should be opposed. If you ask "how can it be possible not to have a government monopoly on law enforcement?", note that historically that has been more often the norm than the system we have now. See, for example, David Friedman's The Machinery Of Freedom for a number of historical case studies. > From this premise, to suggest the government should not enforce laws is a non sequitor. No, it's a reason, as above, to not have the government have a monopoly on law enforcement.

tacomonstrous 8y ago
>See, for example, David Friedman's The Machinery Of Freedom for a number of historical case studies. Is it possible to give a reasonable summary of the thesis of this book? >No, it's a reason, as above, to not have the government have a monopoly on law enforcement. What is the definition of 'government' here? Also, whatever that definition is, it doesn't need a monopoly on law enforcement, but only some of the authority over it.
- pdonis 8y ago
  > Is it possible to give a reasonable summary of the thesis of this book? I'm not sure, but I'll try: the main thesis is that many, if not most, if not all, of the functions we currently associate with conventional governments do not actually need to be provided by conventional governments; they can also be provided by private entities in a free market. Most of the book is trying to imagine and develop in detail how key functions, such as police, fire, and courts, might be provided in a system where conventional governments either did not exist or did not provide those functions. > What is the definition of 'government' here? Also, whatever that definition is, it doesn't need a monopoly on law enforcement, but only some of the authority over it. Different sources will use different definitions, which might lead to different answers to this. :-) A good starting point might be Friedman's definition: a government is an entity which everyone agrees is allowed to do things that, if any other entity did them, would be considered crimes. A common example is taxation: the government is allowed to take money from you whether you agree to give it or not, which would be theft if any other entity did it. A government under this definition might not need to have a monopoly on law enforcement, but it would need to have a monopoly on any actions required for law enforcement that would be crimes if another entity did them. (One common point of debate among different strains of libertarians is whether the set of such actions required for law enforcement is non-empty.)
RandomInteger4 8y ago
This is an asinine concept much in the same way that people being opposed to electric vehicles is an asinine concept. If the government didn't have a monopoly on law enforcement, what you'd end up with are rival gangs each enforcing the law in their own biased way, propogating the amount of injustice we're already dealing with, and decentralizing it, making it harder to fight. When you have a centralized source of law enforcement, you have a "single point of failure" that you can apply pressure to if it becomes corrupt, much in the same way that electric vehicles centralize the source of emissions making it easier to sequester. Decentralization is not a panacea. EDIT: That's not even considering the fact that without the government providing law enforcement, among other things, that many would be guaranteed to go without those things. Right now that may be the case for many with the current system, but at least that is fixable by, again, applying pressure to the single source to adequately provide those things. In a system where the free market is supposed to take care of this, many poor folks would go without. That used to be the case with fire fighters, but we soon learned that it was a bad idea for nobody to show up to fight the fires of the poor folk, because those fires would spread. Same goes for crime, disease, etc.
- pdonis 8y ago
  > This is an asinine concept much in the same way that people being opposed to electric vehicles is an asinine concept. If this is your definition of "asinine concept", I think you need to re-examine your criteria. Not everyone who disagrees with your pet beliefs is asinine. > If the government didn't have a monopoly on law enforcement, what you'd end up with are rival gangs each enforcing the law in their own biased way, propogating the amount of injustice we're already dealing with, and decentralizing it, making it harder to fight. This claim is historically false. I referred elsewhere in this thread to David Friedman's Machinery Of Freedom, which gives a number of historical counterexamples. > When you have a centralized source of law enforcement, you have a "single point of failure" that you can apply pressure to if it becomes corrupt But you also have a single point of failure that special interests can apply pressure to to make it corrupt. Which, historically, is far more likely to happen than what you describe, because the special interests are concentrated while the people as a whole are dispersed and can't easily coordinate. > Decentralization is not a panacea. Nobody has claimed that it is. The fact that decentralization is not a perfect solution to all of society's problems is irrelevant to the point that decentralization, all things considered, is better (because it has less damaging failure modes).

benchaney 8y ago

The ability to seek justice isn't a necessity in the same way that medical care is. > From this premise, to suggest the government should not enforce laws is a non sequitor. That is correct, but I don't think it means what you think it means.

pdkl95 8y ago

Also, has anybody actually proposed making it "illegal for you to pay someone for anonymous health care"? The government funding some type of minimum health care doesn't mean they are actually providing the health care.