pull down to refresh
Got it, sounds reasonable.
Well at this point the question arises... what is even the point of the state? Law? Why should people follow it? How are things enforced? The moment there's someone "authorized" to point a gun, all the other bad things we have seen inevitably roll out
reply
It's a racket, basically a giant organized crime syndicate but with good PR.
Law doesn't have to be tied to a state.
People shouldn't follow the state.
Things are enforced by threat of violence.
The moment there's someone "authorized" to point a gun, all the other bad things we have seen inevitably roll out
Sort of. There's a big difference between being authorized to point a gun at an aggressor in defense of yourself and being authorized to point a gun at peaceful people to force them into obedience.
reply
This is the nirvana fallacy. You're basically attributing a property to the state that it doesn't possess.
When states have taken on the responsibility to provide food, people starved. States have now taken on the responsibility to ensure health care and people are sicker than ever.
If we push far enough, these arguments always come back to two things: scarcity and incentives.
It's a double whammy: there's less stuff for everyone and a normal person gets less of it.
How everything works out is always complicated because an economy is a complex system with unpredictable equilibria. Generally though, people conduct their lives differently absent a safety, which often involves family and social dynamics that act as insurance as well as charities playing larger roles.