Tweet
Ramo,
I fail to see your point. Yes, this may be true, and yes, I oppose state-enforced monopolies (although I certainly don't oppose laws against stealing), but this isn't the main point here. If you want to argue against state intervention in the economy WRT to monopolies, then by all means, start a thread, and I'll heartily agree with you.
By the way, though, if the state has no business enforcing monopolies, why should they have any business breaking one up?
MikeH,
No, the point of society is to provide a means of mutual protection, in the form of a "common power" (to borrow Hobbes' terminology) to punish the initiation of force and/or violations of individual rights.
Rufus,
You're quite right - poor wording on my part. By "student loans", I simply meant loans in general - I wasn't thinking about the interest aspect of it. But of course I oppose the government forcing banks to charge certain interest rates.
LoA,
Actually, up to a certain point, collecting "unemployment benefits" IS a way of recouping money that has been stolen from you. I just don't think that it's a very good idea to do so, because it perpetuates laziness, both on your part and that of others.
However, this problem is avoided all together by doing away with "unemployment insurance", publically funded universities, and things of that nature.
Odin,
That isn't consistent. Why should the draft be morally repugnant in an unpopular war? Don't you really mean that unpopular wars themselves are morally repugnant?
If all that makes conscription wrong is public opinion, then that means that conscription is OK if 51% of the people agree to it. That is just another form of tyranny of the majority - and what if, by the way, all the people who are out of the draft age vote FOR it, and all of those in the draft age vote AGAINST it? Even if the majority have voted in favor of the draft, does that make it moral?
The drug companies benefit immensely from the state enforced monopolies. They come out ahead in the end.
By the way, though, if the state has no business enforcing monopolies, why should they have any business breaking one up?
MikeH,
The idea of society isn't to allow the individual to prosper, it's to ensire that the society survives and prospers. Therefore there has to be a balance between the rights and needs of society and the rights and needs of the individual. Logically your argument ends in anarchy. If people are entirely responsible for themselves then, at best, we'd end up in a technologically advanced version of the Feudal system. Personally I think that'd suck more than some stuff that sucks a lot.
Rufus,
Student loans? Why, isn't that another unfair government program, one that keeps banks from charging the rate they would like and doing so on their own terms?
LoA,
If you wanna argue against DF, just mention that he goes to a public university. He will then say that it is his right to recoup the money that was stolen from him. When he says that, you have him trapped, because then you say that unemployement benefits is not theft, because you are just recouping the money that was stolen from you.
However, this problem is avoided all together by doing away with "unemployment insurance", publically funded universities, and things of that nature.
Odin,
The draft is morally repugnant when a large chunk of the population is not behind a war, aka Vietnam. Conscription should only be used in World War-sized conflicts.
If all that makes conscription wrong is public opinion, then that means that conscription is OK if 51% of the people agree to it. That is just another form of tyranny of the majority - and what if, by the way, all the people who are out of the draft age vote FOR it, and all of those in the draft age vote AGAINST it? Even if the majority have voted in favor of the draft, does that make it moral?
Comment