In A Libertarian state how would the poor survive?

[Uppercut]

Non state entities have been carrying out violence since day dot. The point isn't that the state is the only entity capable of violence, it's that states themselves are entirely predicated on carrying out violence.

So was the EIC tbf.

 

[harsh.ag]

Non state entities have been carrying out violence since day dot. The point isn't that the state is the only entity capable of violence, it's that states themselves are entirely predicated on carrying out violence.

Law enforcement organizations are entirely predicated on carrying out violence. Same would be true of a private sector law enforcement agency.

 

[Ausage]

So was the EIC tbf.

So are the Bloods.

The coffee shop down the road, not so much.

 

[Ausage]

Law enforcement organizations are entirely predicated on carrying out violence. Same would be true of a private sector law enforcement agency.

Did they steal money from those they're protecting?

 

[harsh.ag]

Did they steal money from those they're protecting?

But that's not the claim I was replying to.

 

[Ausage]

But that's not the claim I was replying to.

You were replying to my claim that state entities are predicated on violence. I'm not sure how private law enforcement figures into that claim.

And while the reality would likely be more murky, I don't think it's fair to equate the enforcement of property rights and the physical safety of the individual as violence.

 

[Uppercut]

The coffee shop down the road, not so much.

It's underwritten by the threat of state violence. Otherwise it would have no recourse if it were robbed.

 

[Ausage]

It's underwritten by the threat of state violence. Otherwise it would have no recourse if it were robbed.

It's being provided that service at the point of a gun though. The fact that the most obvious analogy to draw is the mafia/gang extracting protection money is telling.

 

[Ausage]

It's underwritten by the threat of state violence. Otherwise it would have no recourse if it were robbed.

Victim blaming at its worst

 

[Spark]

Non state entities have been carrying out violence since day dot. The point isn't that the state is the only entity capable of violence, it's that states themselves are entirely predicated on carrying out violence.

I'd absolutely call the EIC a state entity under the parameters set out here.

 

[Uppercut]

It's being provided that service at the point of a gun though. The fact that the most obvious analogy to draw is the mafia/gang extracting protection money is telling.

You think there should be multiple competing 'protection' services? That would make you an anarchist too, I think.

I agree that the state is just the most successful and long-established mafia. I think that's pretty obvious when you look at areas where the status of government is still up for grabs.

 

[harsh.ag]

And while the reality would likely be more murky, I don't think it's fair to equate the enforcement of property rights and the physical safety of the individual as violence.

Doesn't it literally require violence against offenders in many cases?

 

[Uppercut]

I'd absolutely call the EIC a state entity under the parameters set out here.

Maybe a bit too autonomous to count as a state entity. More akin to a gang with several mutually beneficial arrangements with the state going on.

 

[Spark]

Maybe a bit too autonomous to count as a state entity. More akin to a gang with several mutually beneficial arrangements with the state going on.

I'm more thinking about the POV of people in India and other places tbf.

 

[Ausage]

You think there should be multiple competing 'protection' services? That would make you an anarchist too, I think.

I agree that the state is just the most successful and long-established mafia. I think that's pretty obvious when you look at areas where the status of government is still up for grabs.

In all honesty, I'm somewhat undecided on that front. Ideally I'd like to see security and justice provided as close to local communities as possible, however I'm not convinced that geopolitical realities will allow us to get to a stage where we can dissolve national militaries. A nation can have all the lofty ideals it likes, but if a huge, nationalistic, organised neighbor eyes it off it will need repelled somehow and I'm not sure an anarchist region would be capable of doing so. The simultaneous dissolving of all nation states is a unicorn I just can't quite get to (though freely disseminating these ideas is a good start).

My general position is "lets get to a minarchy and evaluate from there". I fully recognize that this produces a power imbalance between individual and state that may result in the inevitable creeping of scope and I'm open to the possibility that an anarchy is the only cure for that.

Doesn't it literally require violence against offenders in many cases?

I don't want to get into a rights and justice discussion, but I don't think enforcing property rights and individual safety belong in the same category as initiated force. One aligns much closer to self-defense, the other to assault.

 

[harsh.ag]

I don't want to get into a rights and justice discussion, but I don't think enforcing property rights and individual safety belong in the same category as initiated force. One aligns much closer to self-defense, the other to assault.

Dude, I get that. But self defense also requires violence. How are you getting away from that? That's just a fact. My point was, violence is necessary. And someone has to make a call which violence was right (say, in self defense). That requires the deciding party to have a unique power.

Anarchists (not calling you that) can run as hard as they like from state violence, the requirement of that unique power will keep coming back to find them.

 

[Ausage]

Dude, I get that. But self defense also requires violence. How are you getting away from that? That's just a fact. My point was, violence is necessary. And someone has to make a call which violence was right (say, in self defense). That requires the deciding party to have a unique power.

Anarchists (not calling you that) can run as hard as they like from state violence, the requirement of that unique power will keep coming back to find them.

I'm not getting away from anything. You initially responded to a comment in which the word violence was used in the context of initiated force. That these categories are different is important and I've been responding as such.

I think we've been talking across topics somewhat though. I understand where you're coming from more generally re anarchy. I struggle to conceptualize how components like law enforcement would work practically in such a society. What I will say is I don't think analogies to modern societies are that useful given the enormous number of things our enforcement have scope to prosecute and I don't think state run entities do a particularly good job even acknowledging that. The private sector might not have as high a bar to jump as we might think.

 

[Flem274*]

I don't trust state militaries governed by laws, regulations and politicians who'll (hopefully) get canned by their people if that military disgraces the country, like the majority already have.

I sure as hell will never trust one that exists to turn a profit. PMCs have a poor rep already.

No military has a good rep tbh, but we can't exactly get rid of them because no one else will and he who has the best army rules.

#Peoplearethegreatestobstacletoliberty

 

[Daemon]

Ausage is such a gun. No one line drive bys, sarcasm, personal attacks, aggression. He explains his position clearly when asked and is pretty much always respectful.

Regardless of whether you agree with his views I think most of the regulars in this subbie could learn from him.

 

[Spark]

Endorse the above.