Comment: Rothbard didn't get to the end of the road he was on

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Actually... (see in situ)

Rothbard didn't get to the end of the road he was on

The world which he wanted to live would not have been the black and white nonconsequentialist one he believed.

Question is simple: Do you accept that no one has the right to force you to pay for enforcement of laws which you find morally repugnant?

Specifically if you cannot socialize the cost of enforcing your ethics you won't get 'pure' anything. I predict in a free law society people would be willing to pay for enforcement of some sorts of anti-abortion laws, but not willing to pay to enforce draconian ones. The more draconian the greater the cost.

Issues like whose rights trump, mother or child, property or life, etc will be determined in the market, and will thus conform as closely as possible to the morality of the society. Over time this will create a much more moral society as a whole.

Socialized monopoly law suffers the inherent problems as socialized monopoly anything else. The consumers demands are met poorly and those running the monopolies gain power over everyone else, and society is made poorer, in wealth and morality.