3 ms·
You find it funny, but this is by design. Governments are not benevolent parties, gifts of the gods to society. Companies aren't either, but at least we can ch
by rmbyrro 5y ago
You find it funny, but this is by design. Governments are not benevolent parties, gifts of the gods to society.
Companies aren't either, but at least we can choose which companies we deal (not for everything, but still for many things) and companies can't use violence against us. We can't choose governments (if you live in a "democratic" state, you can choose a politician, which is another thing) and if you don't subscribe to what they impose, they have an excuse to use violence against you and your family.
EDIT: private bodies in theory can use violence, but then we also can fight back in legitimate defense. This doesn't apply to governmental violence.
- astrange 5y agoYou can't choose to opt out of the city government of Fresno? I think it's pretty easy, I'm often not subjected to it.
- rmbyrro 5y agoYou'll just end up in another one just like it...
- lostlogin 5y agoThis is very circular. You prefer companies to the state, because we can chose which companies we deal with and companies can’t use violence. But it’s the state that says companies can’t use violence.
- rmbyrro 5y agoI don't prefer companies, just don't like the idea that other people can use violence against me and it's illegal for me to defend myself.
- NoSorryCannot 5y agoA monopoly on violence is a necessary condition for being a state. It is something that is true for states but not other things, and it isn't circular to say they are potentially more dangerous for having that attribute.
- chillacy 5y agoI think the parent poster’s idea is that a state is a necessary condition for a nonviolent company. In the absence of a state enforcing trade laws you’d just have companies running their own navies and armies to keep the peace, as was the case at times in the past.