- 06 Dec 2012 11:43
#14123128
Which is irrelevant. Whomever is enforcing the rights is a government; that these governments might not have a monopoly and might be able to compete is not relevant to the discussion about whether you support governments or not. Calling a government a "rights management agency" does not actually change the nature of the thing. It does not change the fundamental function of it, which is to be a control on legitimate behavior.
Which has nothing to do with my statement. At all.
Nunt wrote:Has it occured to you that the "either ... or" statement that you made is not a contrast. Someone can support the things that are currently being done by the state, but that does not mean that someone automatically supports the state. I can support the enforcement of property rights, without supporting that this is funded through taxation rather than voluntary contributions. I can support a court system without supporting that this court system is a legalized monopoly.
Which is irrelevant. Whomever is enforcing the rights is a government; that these governments might not have a monopoly and might be able to compete is not relevant to the discussion about whether you support governments or not. Calling a government a "rights management agency" does not actually change the nature of the thing. It does not change the fundamental function of it, which is to be a control on legitimate behavior.
Do you see the arguement? In my country government has provided for: schools, hospitals, public transport, gas, electricity, water, air travel, mail,... I believe that its good that someone should provide these goods AND at the same time believe that these goods ought not be provided using taxation and a legalized monopoly.
Which has nothing to do with my statement. At all.