|
Originally Posted by boost
And wuf, I'm pretty sure you don't agree with this, yet you quote Renton and offer a vague co-sign of his overall post, "some really good points." I mean, this is essentially Trump telling that supporter who asked about Obama being a Muslim, "Well, yeah, we're going to look into that."
It's kind of telling that you two rarely, if ever, contradict each other whenever something in the realm of governance comes up. Are you interested in honest dialogue, or are you trying to win a point for your side?
I don't know how anti-government Renton is, but I'm 100% anti-government, meaning that I think taxes shouldn't exist and there should be no law monopoly telling anybody what they can or can't do. This includes dirty bombs or nukes or death rays from outer space.
Now, if my logic goes only this far, then it's utterly ridiculous. But it doesn't end here. I don't support that behavior at all. I think anybody who is building a dirty bomb should have a bullet put between his eyes. Renton probably does too. Notice where he said that people should "face the consequences" of their actions. I fully support making production of dirty bombs the hardest thing in the world to do, but I do not support a violence monopoly having the power to be the only regulator of this. The reason for this distinction is that I think that the violence monopoly is actually less effective at deterring rogues than a competitive market is. I've said before that I think if security was a market, nuclear weapons would be eradicated. Nukes are an enormous liability to the profit incentive in the market, but they're pretty much the biggest piece of equity a violence monopoly can have. It's no wonder that the world has so many nukes when the system incentivizes that behavior.
So when I (and probably Renton) say something like "people should be free to harm others", I also think that people should be free to stop people from harming others. I know that in a law market, the type of law insurance company I would purchase would be VERY rigorous in preventing initiation of violence.
If you're not sure why I think the fact that I don't support violence shouldn't just mean that I support monopolized laws against those things, it's because monopolies don't work as well as markets. Our governments, the violence and law monopolies and tax regimes that they are, have done a horrible job so far, and I believe the economic principles for why monopolies don't work that well are the reasons why.
|