This is so absurd. Are we to believe only government men in government suits have a right to get criminals off of good peoples backs?, the good people cant retaliate?, can’t self defend?, because if they did they would breach the monopoly… or else, you are sloppy in your use of the word ‘government’ and just are supposing that wheenever an unnaffilliated individual self-defends they are ‘government’
Check this out:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Beautiful-Tree-Personal-Educating-Themselves/dp/1933995920
Private education comes cheap too, and for the poorest people.
He’s doing the 18th Hayek Memorial Lecture for the IEA on the 11th June in Westminster (London).
WOOT! I defended myself from robbers with booby traps! I AM THE STATE!
I find the easiest way to fight these arguments is to just say, “that is unfounded”. With schools, they like to bring up studies that claim education makes societies wealthier. I just point out that correlation is not the same as causation and that it may be that wealthy countries purchase more education. I also point out that any study that claims there is an X amount of return on the dollar, that something else the money could be spent on may bring two or three or even a hundred times more return, but we do not know, because it is being spent on education. For roads, I just point out that there are private roads. For health care, I point out it is one of the most regulated industries already. For welfare, I point out that people have family, friends, and charities already.
I think military is the toughest one to refute. I point out that an armed society is almost impossible to take over. I also point out that with nuclear weapons, no nation is going to attack us. I also point out that we generally do not go to war with trading partners, so free trade is important. Lastly, I point out that making alliances makes enemies.
There would be if public schools hadn’t captured most of the market share.
Who needs military and police? They don’t protect you, they protect the State.
Didn’t a supreme court case rule that police have no obligation to help you? Might be mistaken.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
recommended only for those with strong stomachs…
Oh man. The ultimate perversion. The state is so busy interfering in the economy that it’s excused itself from doing its proper job.
But the answer is not to reverse that error and make the economy do government’s job.
Individuals do have the right of self-defense. In most circumstances it is a right they delegate to the government in order to have orderly legally defined enforcement. The use of retaliatory force in most situations is one that should be delegated to government.
However, if you find yourself in a situation in which someone is attacking you, you absolutely have the right to act for your own defense. You do not give up your right to self-defense just because you usually delegate the matter to the government.
As Ayn Rand said, proper government is one that acts as an agent of man’s self-defense, and as such the government may resort to force only against those who initiate its use.
i get it, randians are defence/rule-of-law socialists. it makes a change from road socialists and money socialists but its not smarter.
How does one do this? I have never done this.
Took you long enough. lol
Excellent question. We have to make a brand new country, I reckon.
I like your Braveheart avatar!
So you support the right to secession?
What if when I secede I decide I don’t want a government?
well that would be really slow process. for example if there is a riot, gov would have to convince people to donate money to mobalize police. Similarly if there is external threat to a country then donations would be requied by gov to act quickly so on.
as far as schools are concern, u r basically saying that if a kid’s parents do not have money, he would have to ask the richer people for that education. if the community where funding is required is poor, how will they get money to ask/market their needs to “would be” donors?
I think this is going a little too far here. They protect both–unfortunately, the state is higher priority, which is probably what you really mean to get at. But they do protect us from other governments (military) and individuals without respect for the law (police).
In a perfect world you wouldn’t need either, but saying we don’t need them at all, in the real world… people are just going to laugh at that statement. It’s just not gonna happen–not in a human society for the foreseeable future.
I’m all for minimizing things like the military and government itself, but I can’t form political opinions based on philosophical visions of what seems an almost utopian society. As a very practical person, I can imagine how the job of protection, law and contract enforcement can be done without a government but I fail to see how making such arguments actually helps us correct the ridiculous reality we face today. Maybe I’m just taking a practical approach to a theoretical question when I shouldn’t be…
Disabuse yourself of the notion that education is either a “necessity” or a right. It’s neither, not when the state hasn’t made it necessary that everyone in the country have a Bachelors degree, and perhaps an MA/MSc soon enough. Under anarchism one can envision a) private schools, of varying cost and quality, presumably with cheaper ones serving the mass market b) charitable institutions focused on educating c) mutual aid societies or “friendlies” d) on-the-job training/apprentiships and e) homeschooling (also easier when not being taxed to death from all angles.) I’ll say if some don’t benefit from any of those it’s still a hell of a lot better than the current state of mis-education and propagandisation…
consider a country like china. poor family does not have enough to eat. so their son/daughter would not have a primary education and therefore would never be able to move out of the poverty. however if there was free gov education program it gives that family a chance to move out of that cycle in one generation time. For a country in the long run would have more educated population and thus future wealth. i can not see a private organization doing this as it is not profitable to provide education to that family.
that is why i believe that schools is one of those very few institutions which would be performed better under gov control along with private schools for more cash intensive structure to meet richer family needs.
Knight, please post that facepalm picture… right under here ¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬