Again, if you oppose "the market" handling those things, then you necessarily advocate violent coercion and extortion of the state handling them. (And since "government" is always the biggest VIOLATOR of individual rights, #3 is kind of amazing.) Break it down to basics: which do you think would result in you getting better "service": an organization that YOU get to choose whether to hire or not, or an organization that FORCES you to buy its services. The former is "the market." The latter is "government." To expect the latter to do a better job is kind of ridiculous, even without all of the historical examples of how it doesn't. (By the way, regarding your first comment, using force against people who have committed fraud or aggression is DEFENSIVE force, which is inherently moral, and doesn't require "government" or any special "authority.")
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Again, I obviously disagree with this assertion.
Let's imagine a free market for the services I've mentioned. If the service is contract enforcement, I will choose the service that would allow me to violate the contract that says I have to pay you for services and goods you've delivered to me. If the service is law enforcement, I will chose the service that would allow me to take your stuff without punishment. If it's safety, I would choose the service that would keep me safe even after I've killed you so you don't talk about the injustices you've suffered at my hands. I suspect those services would be pretty popular to the people who could afford them. If there is just the free market, what do you think could protect you from my abuse in that situation if you can't afford the services I'm using? Would you not be coerced into things you are unhappy with in that situation? Would you not be subjected to violence?
Where are the historical examples of markets doing all of that on their own?
First of all, morality is subjective, so the distinction you are offering has no practical merit I can see. And you did not answer the question I posed for you there. How would the market protect you in that situation. Who is going to exert that "defensive force" and how will you make sure that doesn't get abused and so on and so on. Tell me how you untangle that mess without letting in some authority or allowing for people to just use violence on each other until market equilibrium or something. This is why I call the idea that the market on its own can provide everything utopian - I don't think it has any real chance of working in practice. It's just like communism. It sounds appealing to some if it could work perfectly, but it never could. If you think it can work, please tell me how, not why you think it would be just if it could. Of course it would be preferable if it could work. If I thought it could work, I would support it too.
To your first comment, what would happen if you refused to pay for the government service? How is that result not coercive?
It is coercive, sure, and so is receiving punishment for a crime. If any form of coercion is unacceptable, so is punishing people for crimes.
Force when used in self-defense is not an immoral act. If by crime you mean that someone has been victimized by the criminal (aka the criminal initiated force) and by punishment you mean bringing some sort of justice to bear against the perpetrator, then it is acceptable to act with force against that person. It is the defense of another, a form of self defense, not the initiation of force against the criminal.
Now in the US and all other places in the world there are many laws against acts that have no identifiable victims. Punishing people for these "crimes" is indeed coercive and immoral. It is the initiation of force against someone. So is forcing someone to pay for such nonsense.
You are telling me what you think is moral. To put it simply you are saying it's OK to punish people for crimes with victims. My objections have nothing to do with that. They are on the basis that your proposed system has no way to ensure those outcomes.
The fact that something sounds moral to you (especially keeping in mind that morality is subjective) does not mean that it will work out in practice. If the world was perfect and all people were nice, good and non-abusive, both anarchism and communism would be great to live in. But the world is not like that and perfect outcomes are impossible. That's why I call them utopias.
Let me ask you this. What is the reason that we have invented philosophical and moral principles? Note that by choosing the word "invented" I do not concede that the moral standards I live by are subjective in nature.
Now that's a big question. I'm not really sure I can even answer that properly. What's your answer and how does it relate to your point?
Living by a particular standard does not mean this standard would be sufficient to have a society working well with it as the sole guiding principle.