5 ms·

Not sure what you're getting at here.. are you saying, that, without government, the East India company wouldn't be stealing people's lands? It seems like you

Not sure what you're getting at here.. are you saying, that, without government, the East India company wouldn't be stealing people's lands? It seems like you didn't think your cunning plan all the way through, because you seem to be implying that you need more government regulation on what private corporations can do, correct? Or are you saying that, without government regulation, the East India company wouldn't have formed their own private army? Do you think private armed militias, that are legal today in the US, be allowed to exist? You're going to have to reconcile your position of "less government" with "leads to more private armies".

mindcrime 11y ago
are you saying, that, without government, the East India company wouldn't be stealing people's lands? Most likely. Of course it's all hypotheticals, but since we - for the most part - define government as that entity which has (mostly) a monopoly on the use of force, a private company would not generally be considered empowered to do that without the sanction of a government. Or are you saying that, without government regulation, the East India company wouldn't have formed their own private army? Correct. Do you think private armed militias, that are legal today in the US, be allowed to exist? Of course they can exist. Now, of course, we're at the bottom of the stack, so to speak. What if one of these private militias "goes rogue" and commits unspeakable atrocities? Who's to stop that, right? And I guess your answer would be "the government"? I'd argue that the answer is "some other voluntarily assembled mutual defense entity, or no one". Anyway, all we've really shown here is that if you drill down deep enough, human conflict is inevitable and at some level we may never get away from "force vs force". But I argue against institutionalizing the idea of using force to compel people to do things, and keep the use of force reserved for self defense. You're going to have to reconcile your position of "less government" with "leads to more private armies". I'm not opposed to private armies in general. I'm opposed to private armies, operating with the sanction of the State, and essentially becoming one more arm of the government, and being used to violate people's rights. Or, you could even omit the "with the sanction of the State" bit, and the rest would still stand. The problem is, when we accept the presence and authority of something like a State, and then it endorses or sanctions "evil" (for lack of a better term) acts, it's that much harder to muster opposition to those acts, since they're nominally "legal".
- mozumder 11y ago
  >Or are you saying that, without government regulation, the East India company wouldn't have formed their own private army? >Correct. This is why libertinism is often relegated to that of a sweet, innocent 12 year old idealists, because they do not know about the real world. In the real world, what happens without government is that warlords form. This happens throughout history, such as colonial expansion into indian territory, or after the collapse of the Soviet Union, etc. And it's happening RIGHT NOW in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Sudan. You don't need a state to sanction violence for violence to happen. Violence will happen when there isn't a state to sanction it. This is why the correct solution that adults agree on is a strong, centralized government with power. The whole point of a strong, centralized powerful government is to limit the rights and freedoms of individuals, so people AREN'T allowed to do what they want. Because, when people are allowed to do what they want, they form violent armies. Government limits peoples rights and freedoms to do that. To stop this, you need a) a strong, powerful government, and b) that government to say "no violence." Government is the social contract you offer to other people. And only though a social contract can you prevent violence.
  - Turing_Machine 11y ago
    Why are "warlords" worse than, say, the Stalinist USSR, Nazi Germany? That's what you get with your "strong, powerful, centralized government". If there's ever been a government that actually said "no violence" and followed through on it, I haven't heard of it. Can you name a few?
    - mozumder 11y ago
      Are you implying that "warlords" are better than the US government? Which system is better? A libertarian warlord system? Or the US government? What exactly makes a warlord system more favorable than the US government? If you want an example of a government, you don't need to bring up Stalin's Russia or Nazi Germany.. you have an example of government right here in the US! Clearly you thought through your cunning "less government" libertarian plan, and have concluded that such a system, which results in warlords, would be better than the US government, right? Let's hear that rationale then.
Turing_Machine 11y ago
"Not sure what you're getting at here.. are you saying, that, without government, the East India company wouldn't be stealing people's lands?" Can you give me a plausible scenario for how, without a government and its concomitant military power, a band of people from a small island in the Atlantic ocean could take over the entire Indian subcontinent? Specifics, please.

mindcrime 11y ago

are you saying, that, without government, the East India company wouldn't be stealing people's lands? Most likely. Of course it's all hypotheticals, but since we - for the most part - define government as that entity which has (mostly) a monopoly on the use of force, a private company would not generally be considered empowered to do that without the sanction of a government. Or are you saying that, without government regulation, the East India company wouldn't have formed their own private army? Correct. Do you think private armed militias, that are legal today in the US, be allowed to exist? Of course they can exist. Now, of course, we're at the bottom of the stack, so to speak. What if one of these private militias "goes rogue" and commits unspeakable atrocities? Who's to stop that, right? And I guess your answer would be "the government"? I'd argue that the answer is "some other voluntarily assembled mutual defense entity, or no one". Anyway, all we've really shown here is that if you drill down deep enough, human conflict is inevitable and at some level we may never get away from "force vs force". But I argue against institutionalizing the idea of using force to compel people to do things, and keep the use of force reserved for self defense. You're going to have to reconcile your position of "less government" with "leads to more private armies". I'm not opposed to private armies in general. I'm opposed to private armies, operating with the sanction of the State, and essentially becoming one more arm of the government, and being used to violate people's rights. Or, you could even omit the "with the sanction of the State" bit, and the rest would still stand. The problem is, when we accept the presence and authority of something like a State, and then it endorses or sanctions "evil" (for lack of a better term) acts, it's that much harder to muster opposition to those acts, since they're nominally "legal".

mozumder 11y ago
>Or are you saying that, without government regulation, the East India company wouldn't have formed their own private army? >Correct. This is why libertinism is often relegated to that of a sweet, innocent 12 year old idealists, because they do not know about the real world. In the real world, what happens without government is that warlords form. This happens throughout history, such as colonial expansion into indian territory, or after the collapse of the Soviet Union, etc. And it's happening RIGHT NOW in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Sudan. You don't need a state to sanction violence for violence to happen. Violence will happen when there isn't a state to sanction it. This is why the correct solution that adults agree on is a strong, centralized government with power. The whole point of a strong, centralized powerful government is to limit the rights and freedoms of individuals, so people AREN'T allowed to do what they want. Because, when people are allowed to do what they want, they form violent armies. Government limits peoples rights and freedoms to do that. To stop this, you need a) a strong, powerful government, and b) that government to say "no violence." Government is the social contract you offer to other people. And only though a social contract can you prevent violence.
- Turing_Machine 11y ago
  Why are "warlords" worse than, say, the Stalinist USSR, Nazi Germany? That's what you get with your "strong, powerful, centralized government". If there's ever been a government that actually said "no violence" and followed through on it, I haven't heard of it. Can you name a few?
  - mozumder 11y ago
    Are you implying that "warlords" are better than the US government? Which system is better? A libertarian warlord system? Or the US government? What exactly makes a warlord system more favorable than the US government? If you want an example of a government, you don't need to bring up Stalin's Russia or Nazi Germany.. you have an example of government right here in the US! Clearly you thought through your cunning "less government" libertarian plan, and have concluded that such a system, which results in warlords, would be better than the US government, right? Let's hear that rationale then.

Turing_Machine 11y ago

"Not sure what you're getting at here.. are you saying, that, without government, the East India company wouldn't be stealing people's lands?" Can you give me a plausible scenario for how, without a government and its concomitant military power, a band of people from a small island in the Atlantic ocean could take over the entire Indian subcontinent? Specifics, please.