3 ms·

Choice. I'm not forced into a service provided by anyone. Government is monopoly of violence. For example, mono crop wheat is terrible, but the government use

Choice. I'm not forced into a service provided by anyone. Government is monopoly of violence. For example, mono crop wheat is terrible, but the government uses its monopoly of force to coerce me into subsidies for foods I refuse to eat. These subsidies are the reason it's healthiest to stick to the perimeter of the store. Without them, cheap cereal junk foods would at least not be so cheap. This encouragement of low quality mono cropping directly supports big ag and companies like Monsanto. I'd much rather spend my money at a local farm.

nicoburns 5y ago
The government is not a monopoly of violence. Plenty of non-governmental organisations are violent. The existence of private security firms is an obvious example of this. In addition to this, if you support a minimal government that enforces private property rights, then this doesn't eliminate government violence: it allows the wealthy to access it by proxy.
- reedjosh 5y ago
  > Plenty of non-governmental organisations are violent. The existence of private security firms is an obvious example of this. These organizations are either government sanctioned or considered criminal. The libertarian viewpoint on this is that all initiation of force is criminal. > if you support a minimal government that enforces private property rights I don't support that. I think individuals should take the protection of themselves and their property seriously. And no, I don't just mean having a gun, but instead seeking a place that honors private property and or paying for protection services as needed. Everything the government provides, a private entity can as well.
  - nicoburns 5y ago
    > The libertarian viewpoint on this is that all initiation of force is criminal. What count as initiation of force? If I walk into your house and take your things, am I initiating use of force? If I want to live somewhere where that is not the norm, how am I supposed to find that place? It seems very idealistic to me that such a place could exist without it being enforced somehow. > instead seeking a place that honors private property and or paying for protection services as needed. Everything the government provides, a private entity can as well. If that private entity makes that provision through the use of force, do they not then constitute a government of sorts? If they do not use force, then how do they manage to make that provision at all?
  - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
    "paying for protection services as needed." I can't wait untill we have two different "protection services" come into conflict because they are "protecting" different things and we have shootouts on the streets. Much like the latest incident with Vigilante app, but imagine both entities had good for hire https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/21/22447446/citizen-app-internal-slack-palisades-fire-arson-bounty-manhunt-los-angeles https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/21/22447446/citizen-app-inte...
ClumsyPilot 5y ago
"Choice. I'm not forced into a service provided by anyone." This us mental gymnastics. Oh, customer's chose a network operator that sells their data. Nevermind that all 4 network operators sell your data! Or could have chosen to live without a phone and be like a hermit in the woods!

nicoburns 5y ago

The government is not a monopoly of violence. Plenty of non-governmental organisations are violent. The existence of private security firms is an obvious example of this. In addition to this, if you support a minimal government that enforces private property rights, then this doesn't eliminate government violence: it allows the wealthy to access it by proxy.

reedjosh 5y ago
> Plenty of non-governmental organisations are violent. The existence of private security firms is an obvious example of this. These organizations are either government sanctioned or considered criminal. The libertarian viewpoint on this is that all initiation of force is criminal. > if you support a minimal government that enforces private property rights I don't support that. I think individuals should take the protection of themselves and their property seriously. And no, I don't just mean having a gun, but instead seeking a place that honors private property and or paying for protection services as needed. Everything the government provides, a private entity can as well.
- nicoburns 5y ago
  > The libertarian viewpoint on this is that all initiation of force is criminal. What count as initiation of force? If I walk into your house and take your things, am I initiating use of force? If I want to live somewhere where that is not the norm, how am I supposed to find that place? It seems very idealistic to me that such a place could exist without it being enforced somehow. > instead seeking a place that honors private property and or paying for protection services as needed. Everything the government provides, a private entity can as well. If that private entity makes that provision through the use of force, do they not then constitute a government of sorts? If they do not use force, then how do they manage to make that provision at all?
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  "paying for protection services as needed." I can't wait untill we have two different "protection services" come into conflict because they are "protecting" different things and we have shootouts on the streets. Much like the latest incident with Vigilante app, but imagine both entities had good for hire https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/21/22447446/citizen-app-internal-slack-palisades-fire-arson-bounty-manhunt-los-angeles https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/21/22447446/citizen-app-inte...

ClumsyPilot 5y ago

"Choice. I'm not forced into a service provided by anyone." This us mental gymnastics. Oh, customer's chose a network operator that sells their data. Nevermind that all 4 network operators sell your data! Or could have chosen to live without a phone and be like a hermit in the woods!