Comment: You just don't like scabs. Competition is bad amirite?

(See in situ)

You just don't like scabs. Competition is bad amirite?

That is an exemplar of how perverted things get under socialism.

If someone shoots someone there has been a potential crime committed and certainly division of labor will make this determination more likely to be correct, just like a professional vet will be more likely to best determine how to treat your dog. But division of labor doesn't imply that socialism is the optimal solution, quite the opposite. How do you know who the best people and services are?

Socialism doesn't, socialism can't, and socialism has no interest.

Socialism can't compute.

Which is exactly why we have a rogue system today, it's producing a lot of stuff and none of it is what people want and none of it is justice.

You are correct that the state was historically, and is today, just the top gangs dressed up in suits. That doesn't justify their authority, however.

The function of the clergy, academia, and the media has been to try to convince people otherwise of course. This makes farming the tax cattle much more efficient.

Part of this indoctrination has been to tell us that we are the government, the government is just us, and it's authority is derived from us, therefore whatever it does is legitimate, it is just us after all.

This is of course a facile lie, but the principle is sound. It's not true, we both know it isn't true, but if the government is to be legitimate, if minarchy is to work, it should and must be true.

To fully clarify the example. Optimally, and I suspect in a free society under free law, you would be put on trial for shooting the man who you claim killed your daughter because there is a knowledge problem, we don't know if the circumstances you present are true. We are trying to promote justice.

But you are not on trial for being non union labor changing a lightbulb.

The crime in question is whether you killed an innocent man or not. The crime is not that you 'arrogated' the authority to do justice, because the authority comes from you in the first place.

Assuming the sanction would have been capital for the crime you claim the guy you shot committed, and assuming the evidence supports your claims, then yes we have now determined you have committed no crime.

If we punish you for being a scab, then that is a crime.

If you killed someone for something the sanction would not otherwise be capital, then yes there has been a crime committed. And in my personal view third parties, and certainly not the state, can never be sure enough of a verdict that capital punishment is in order.

We know for a fact people have been and are continually being convicted who are innocent. Of course this is inevitably and must progressively get worse under a socialized market.

We can expect under capitalism this would be far less common, just like we can expect much better food preparation hygiene in a private restaurant than a government school, if the restaurant gives people food poisoning they have a revenue problem.

If the cafeteria gives kids food poisoning they get a larger budget, clearly they were understaffed, and probably need a food hygiene safety officer.

And don't invoke Hammurabi, or Machiavelli, or Clausewitz, or Hobbes, et al. I don't suppose you would be impressed if I invoked Aquinas or Augustine in trying to demonstrate the validity of Christianity, so yes people justifying the Rule of Man do in fact write stuff justifying the Rule of Man. Stipulated. Would you be surprised if I told you Rothbard or Lao-Tzu or Spooner opposed the state? Jefferson and Voltaire were deeply suspicious of the state. Since you are clearly not as advanced a thinker as any of those worthies does that mean I win the argument?

Feel free to quote someone if they have a relevant point you agree with. Otherwise you aren't even doing the fallacy properly. Ad Vercundiam has a form. You're supposed to say "Hammurabi said X, therefore X is right you and thus you are a derp." You shortened it to "Hammurabi is smart and you're dumb!", may as well have said "Because Racism!"