4 ms·
> The only way to prevent this from happening is to threaten violence or threat of violence to either of these people. That's a weird view. We could also just
by citizenkeen 3y ago
> The only way to prevent this from happening is to threaten violence or threat of violence to either of these people.
That's a weird view.
We could also just, you know, vote away banks. I'm not sure why a centralized bank would result in violence.
- mhluongo 3y agoHow are laws and the will of the people enforced? Typically via fines or jail time... both of which are backed by violence.
- SllX 3y agoThe enforcement of this vote (or law) would be violence against others. Majoritarian tyranny is still just tyranny.
- beisner 3y agoOP is making a dumb libertarian argument basically saying "there's nothing stopping people from doing what they want except the threat of force/violence" (which is trivially true, and the mechanism by which any group of people - even democratic societies - imposes their will on insiders or outsiders), and "do you really want to use THE THREAT OF VIOLENCE to prevent me from STARTING A BANK???" as if it's different from the enforcement of any law. OP questions the use of "should" uncharitably, because the original comment's unstated assumption is clear - society "should" be set up to tradeoff freedom and minimizing collective harm. Violence is not the only form of harm; unregulated banking can obviously cause harm in the society (starvation was pretty harmful in the US during the Great Depression), and so it's valid to question whether or not society should consider how the benefits of private banking (with any amount of regulation) trade off with a public alternative.