- 07 Jul 2004 18:27
#376732
As far as I understand, Libertarianism opposes the physical coercion (i.e. pay taxes, or you go to jail) except where it is nessecary to preserve property rights (i.e. if you steal, you go to jail). On the other hand, according to Libertarianism, any form of economic coercion is acceptable.
I am also led to believe that the police, who would be the ones enforcing property rights, would be sustained by voluntary donations.
This presents a paradox:
A rich donor of the police force would have to power of economic coercion over them. He is free to donate or not donate to the police as he sees fit - so surely he could make his donation conditional on the police using physical coercion in a way he wants them too?
I am also led to believe that the police, who would be the ones enforcing property rights, would be sustained by voluntary donations.
This presents a paradox:
A rich donor of the police force would have to power of economic coercion over them. He is free to donate or not donate to the police as he sees fit - so surely he could make his donation conditional on the police using physical coercion in a way he wants them too?