The idea of a service is intellectual; in contrast to a gun which is physical. Since the intellectual can be dominated by physical means people wont consider anyone who uses physical means as a service, but rather a necessity. Its because we as a people have been conquered by the violent. The supermarket is easy to see as a service because Vons doesn’t have an army. Notice that people will view the grocers union as a necessity, not all, but these same people will. Because a union uses violence to justify itself.
The problem isn’t that law and security are provided by the government, but that they aren’t provided by the government. Governments are capable of providing law and security; order and protection of property are possible if they so desire it but they do not desire it. Why? Because there is no authority, there is nothing but mindless democratic machinery, red tape and wheels within wheels.
The whole damn system of the ‘Republic’ is a failure, and it’s a miracle it has lasted this long. The answer is not, however, ‘no government’ but real government; actual authority, actual capacity, actual governance, actual responsibility.
Is this a voluntary government or non-voluntarily government?
As valuable as ‘liberty’ (in the Manchester or Hobbesian sense) may be, it must be preceded by peace, order and security. Thus the government supercedes the authority of any given individual for its explicit purpose is Cameralist (to protect property owners, and to derive revenues thereby). Those who are a threat to property owners and privilege (private law) are outside of its purview and are to be dealt with in whatever way seems most appropriate.
The corporate body is formed for the interests of its customers and its owners, not some imaginary ‘society’ or ‘rights’ or what have you.
How does it gain said authority?
It would be more accurate to say that this is an ex post facto justification and victim rationalization rather than its “purpose”.
Think of it this way: the state is the PDA that outcompeted all the others.
This is interesting I never thought about it that way.
Well two things:
Can you give an example of voluntarily agreement in unanimity which brought about the environment of the state out competing all others? And what gives them the right to prohibit present competition?
Do they really need the right to outlaw other forms of competition when they’ve got the guns? I mean…isn’t that kinda the whole point of being the institution of force?
In other words, I don’t think they have the right, but they DO have the power.
’
If they are the only ‘PDA’ because they use violence or the threat of violence then they have no legitimate right in the first place.
But they ARE the threat of violence.
Not necessarily. I could live on my property without interaction or with voluntary interaction and it not lead to PDA violence. If you are to assume that since PDA’s can engage in violence makes them embody said violence then you would have to apply that to every human being since all human beings are capable of violence.
Human beings can be violent but an institution that literally is THE embodiment of violence in a society is also literally THE threat of violence. That’s what the police are. They’re the threat of violence. They’re given sanction to use violent means to achieve certain ends and those means and ends depend on what the law is but they’re still the literal threat of violence within society.
So I mean…let’s assume that the current government never had to compete to become THE institution of violence, it doesn’t change the fact that they’ve got the guns, they’ve got the power.
Well that doesn’t make sense. An institution is merely a collection of individuals. It is not as if becoming a police officer makes you more threatening.
And that is no different in many respects to a common individual. Citizens are actually allowed to arrest people. I don’t know if you know that.
Well we are talking about the legitimacy of the matter.
But it does give them more power than the average citizen, right? I mean, police can do more than just arrest people. These institutions are given the special power to hurt people. Not all institutions wield that power. The people who work for these institutions are granted that power too.
Sure, citizens can arrest people, but they’re not part of the apparatus of violence. They’re doing something similar maybe to what police do (one of their powers at least) but they’re not literally acting as the hand of the institution.
But legitimacy implies law. They ARE the law. Or at least the executors of it.
Just to be clear, are you saying that they don’t have the legal right to outlaw competition?
So, a non-voluntary government?
How do you make sure they don’t exist?
This.
By the willingness of a significant majority of property holders to actually submit to its rulings and sovereignty.
It would be more accurate to say that this is an ex post facto justification and victim rationalization rather than its “purpose”.
Not at all. I grant you that at certain points many governments are bad at this, for reasons of bad organizational structure or bad leaders - but the same can be said of any failed corporation. The trick is to make sure that the right incentives, corporate structure and prospectus are in place to ensure (as far as is possible in any human endevour) that the right people and organizations exist. To a large extent this must rely on what economists like to call ‘market forces’, but not solely on ‘market’ forces, also on forces of the human mind, culture and civilizational development of a people. It must be suited to specific circumstances and societies. These can not be proscribed, for ‘a constitution for all nations is fit for none’.
So, a non-voluntary government?
It is voluntary for those who hold property and can maintain themselves in a civilized manner. Barbarians are neither subject to nor protected by laws except at the sufferance of the sovereign.