A Misesian Syllogism for Refuting Rothbardian AnarchismSubmitted by BILL3 on Fri, 06/06/2014 - 21:43
1. Securing one's own safety is labor.
2. There is dis utility in labor.
3. Therefore, people prefer free security from the government.
A possible objection is that taxes for general security require labor, but this is easily countered.
Most of us get more security and legal stability than we could afford out of pocket.
So, the taxes objection would cover only those who have high enough income that they are expending more labor for security, in taxes, than if they paid direct security firms.
But this could also be countered easily.
The very rich simply wouldn't have the market to sell to if it didn't have publicly provisioned security, and so wouldn't be very rich in some hypothetically private security market.
Besides, it doesn't really matter if the rich in such a world could also be secure. Everyone else would still demand the public provision of security and law, because of the disutility of the labor involved in providing their own security. They'd rather just use a lower level of labor and pitchfork wielding to provide for taxes to fund common law and general security provision.