I think all you're saying is that it's impractical to be 100% moral on an institutional level. I like to think that's not true. Anyone who initiates aggression against peaceful people is inherently wrong, even if (they think) it's for a greater good. You're just trying to morally justify it for practicality.
> I think all you're saying is that it's impractical to be 100% moral on an institutional level.
No, I'm saying you can't make a stable practical system that protects property rights that doesn't use monopolies of violence at some scale.
> Anyone who initiates aggression against peaceful people is inherently wrong, even if (they think) it's for a greater good.
Who protects those "peaceful" people when they are objects of aggression? What happens when one of them commits an act of aggression against another group?
>No, I'm saying you can't make a stable practical system that protects property rights that doesn't use monopolies of violence at some scale.
Monopolizing and using violence to enforce involuntary contracts is already a violation of property rights. So it's impossible to have the two simultaneously. You're referring to a limited form of property rights at the expense of moral rationality that more resembles a feudal system.
> Who protects those "peaceful" people when they are objects of aggression? What happens when one of them commits an act of aggression against another group?
Do you realize you're saying that one group needs to initiate violence (in the form of law enforcement over a social contract imposed at birth) so that we can protect people from violence? You're initiating violence against peaceful people to achieve some political agenda.
“they who can give up liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
> Do you realize you're saying that one group needs to initiate violence (in the form of law enforcement over a social contract imposed at birth)
You can describe it in inflammatory sounding terms, but it is the basis of all large human societies, regardless of the model of governance they subscribe to. Please describe the alternative that is free from the monopoly on violence, and please provide examples.
> Please describe the alternative that is free from the monopoly on violence, and please provide examples.
Sure - just a government that, while perhaps monopolizing most violence, also protects citizens' rights to bear arms as a competitive force. And not compelling anyone to enter into contracts like Social Security. As long as every single government expense is the minimum necessary intervention to protect property, that's fine with me. You aren't actually even advocating for anything outside of a monopoly over violence. If that's all you support, that's a very extreme libertarian position to have, so we're not far off. But I suspect you're using this as a method to just try to win a debate and justify your immoral belief system. We should at least be honest with ourselves and admit that immoral actions are necessary but should be minimized. I was originally replying to a self-described communist. You're here debating the nuances of how extreme you can be as a libertarian before it becomes impractical.
