| |
  
|
||||||||||
Can government protect rights well?
Submitted by atrickpay on Wed, 11/18/2009 - 12:17
If government can't do healthcare, education, financial regulation, retirement savings, welfare, etc....can it do a good job of protecting rights? » |
|
|||||||||
The Daily Paul is a community website with no official affiliation with Ron Paul or his Presidential Committee. The content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original poster, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of the Daily Paul, its owner, site moderators or Ron Paul. This site may contain adult language and adult concepts. If you are offended by such content, or feel you may be offended by such content, point your browser to a different site IMMEDIATELY. For more, read the Full Disclaimer
© 2007 - 2011 by The Daily Paul. Not paid for by, nor officially affiliated in any way with Ron Paul. | General Site Disclaimer | DMCA Disclaimer | Advertise here
Concerning the workforce, the government focuses on productivity
Roads, Daylights savings times, military, police, jails, etc.
And they do a good job with harvesting that productivity via taxes: income tax, sales tax, inflation tax
I dislike using the master/slave metaphor, but they really are employing lots of slave master techniques to keep us motivated and working.
it depends on the scale
A one world, scientific dictatorship that enforces the sovereignty of many small nation states will be the ideal mechanism to maintain the necessary pre-conditions where individual liberty can thrive.
Because if a monsterously huge monopoly on violence works...
Because if a monsterously huge monopoly on 'legal violence works.......a completely global monopoly on 'legal' violence would work so much better.
Lol.
.
first, they laugh...
.
LOL
LOL
Ventura 2012
It can protect it a hell of
It can protect it a hell of a lot better than anarchist proposals of contract law, enforcement agencies beholden to the almighty dollar, and the most laughable of all, "common law".
Ventura 2012
Just to clarify...
So what you're saying is that the people who are employed by and can be referred to as 'government', the people who live at the expense of those upon whom they prey, that those people...government, are superior at protecting the rights of the people whom they prey upon?
Something wrong with the profit motive?
nothing wrong with it, we
nothing wrong with it, we just need to understand that the government is a subsidy on the individual versus the productive capacity when it comes to law enforcement/rights enforcement.
By the way, the only post I could see on this thread was "limelemon's" before I signed in. Why is that?
Ventura 2012
If one's not signed in,
there is a delay on the appearance of posts for some reason.
oh ok, makes sense.
oh ok, makes sense.
Ventura 2012
impossible
Government coercively obtains a monopoly on the protection of rights via their courts and police.
Point 1. The nature of monopolies is such that they create inefficiencies at higher prices. That’s one reason why government obtains poor results.
Point 2. Government obtains its monopoly coercively, by threatening violence against any competitors. This initiation of violence violates rights.
Point 3. Government “protects” positive rights, such as the right to education and the right to welfare. In order to enforce a positive right, someone is being forced to provide it, which violates the rights of the provider.
The solution is to protect only negative rights via the free market. This is consistent with the non-aggression principle.
Sounds reasonable to me
.