I suppose one can call me a natural rights theorist once Catholic antropology enters the debate.
Maybe, but I think that, regardless of intent, everything that he said could apply equally to private defense.
I hate to see these minarchist vs. anarcho-capitalist debates devolve into holy wars like they so often seem to, primarily because I was skeptical myself of anarcho-capitalism before giving it a great deal of thought. Liberty student said, “What can government do that individuals cannot?” and I think this may be the most important sentence in this thread. Why is government a prerequisite for social cooperation? Would people cease to acknowledge social norms in the absence of a centralized police force? Is society contingent on a defense monopoly? If so, why not an education monopoly, a transportation monopoly, a finance monopoly, a postal monopoly?
That is the root which must be struck in every value free argument.
+1 and Lam has not addressed it (edit: he has since addressed it). I find people like Lam conveniently ignore valid points that they cannot address.
But he did not, understanding the context of a book is very important to understanding the meaning of the book.
Government is nothing but the sum of all individual actions in the government - the question is unanswerable because it is comparing two uncomparable social entities: individuals are not institutions, nor can they be compared to them; rather, it is the individual actions that create the institutions. In fact, government is nothing but the creation of individuals.
Without justice, people do cease to acknowledge social norms, that’s a sociological fact.
Could there even be society without a defense monopoly; if there cannot be society without a defense monopoly asking the questions above are moot for the industries you refer to can exist without a monopoly. Furthermore, everything that you refer to above is a form of social cooperation; the maintenance justice, on the other hand is not a form of social cooperation, rather it is about the use of force upon individuals who do not consent to the force being applied upon them.
There is one question, that, in my experiences, anarcho-capitalism has been completely mute about: why was there such a deep connection between the idea of society, and government in the first civilizations? In fact, the answer to this question poses unsettling conclusions for anarchy for, without a doubt, it seems that governments were one of the new social institutions that enabled civilization to emerge, and expand. Furthermore, Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism is yet another one of those moralist political systems that Mises spoke out against in Theory and History for justice is not found in upholding certain principles like the nonaggression axiom above all else; rather, “(t)he yardstick of justice is conduciveness to the preservation of social cooperation.”
So basically, governments can do nothing that individuals cannot do. Thanks.
Thomas Aquinas : “much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death.”
I’ll try once more. Lam, are you wiling to respond to ladyattis’s videos that counter your claims about civilization, ethics, and law?
Emergence and “Politics”