3 ms·

Laissez-faire is the default. It's only through the indoctrination of young impressionable minds by the state that people become persuaded by arguments the sta

Laissez-faire is the default. It's only through the indoctrination of young impressionable minds by the state that people become persuaded by arguments the state should intrude into things.

bdcravens 3y ago
I would think it's injuries and deaths from the lack of safety and standards that would be far more persuasive. It's never about trusting the state; it's understanding that unchecked capitalism is less trustworthy. That's not to say it's inherently evil, but quite to the contrary: profit is inevitably self-serving, and only outside forces can ensure that the needs of others are considered.
- infamouscow 3y ago
  I'm confused. The only reason every criminal stepping foot on my property doesn't have their head on a pike is because the state will involve itself in their failure to prevent criminals from committing crimes on my property. My property would be drastically safer if the state was not involved. You might disagree with my methods of deterring crime, but 1. I don't believe in democracy. My rights are not subject to vote. 2. There is literally no rational explanation why anyone should relinquish their natural rights and delegate them to a state. This is what The Concept of the Political by Carl Schmitt discusses at length. Schmitt is often dismissed by Western academics because of his later association with the Nazi Party, but it's a cop-out for a serious introspection of what his works said about the underlying nature of society and human nature. It frightens them, to put it mildly. Hitler was only able to take power after grasping the implications of his work. 3. I would bet my life savings that if I could get away with leaving the heads of criminals on pikes, along with other unspeakably heinous things, there would be a large drop in crime. Most won't dispute this, which begs the question why does the state allow criminal behavior to prosper when it costs far less to not get involved.

Laissez-faire is the default. It's only through the indoctrination of young impressionable minds by the state that people become persuaded by arguments the state should intrude into things.

bdcravens 3y ago

I would think it's injuries and deaths from the lack of safety and standards that would be far more persuasive. It's never about trusting the state; it's understanding that unchecked capitalism is less trustworthy. That's not to say it's inherently evil, but quite to the contrary: profit is inevitably self-serving, and only outside forces can ensure that the needs of others are considered.

infamouscow 3y ago
I'm confused. The only reason every criminal stepping foot on my property doesn't have their head on a pike is because the state will involve itself in their failure to prevent criminals from committing crimes on my property. My property would be drastically safer if the state was not involved. You might disagree with my methods of deterring crime, but 1. I don't believe in democracy. My rights are not subject to vote. 2. There is literally no rational explanation why anyone should relinquish their natural rights and delegate them to a state. This is what The Concept of the Political by Carl Schmitt discusses at length. Schmitt is often dismissed by Western academics because of his later association with the Nazi Party, but it's a cop-out for a serious introspection of what his works said about the underlying nature of society and human nature. It frightens them, to put it mildly. Hitler was only able to take power after grasping the implications of his work. 3. I would bet my life savings that if I could get away with leaving the heads of criminals on pikes, along with other unspeakably heinous things, there would be a large drop in crime. Most won't dispute this, which begs the question why does the state allow criminal behavior to prosper when it costs far less to not get involved.