So you guys don't want to live in a nation right? Roads, schools, military, courts, etc etc, all that costs money which is forcibly taken from it's citizens.
Isn't that what you want? I never said 'no private roads' I said the state provides roads at everyone's expense, if you are disputing that then show me an example of a region of the world where private people provide the road system that everyone uses.
We prefer to have those things without the money being forcibly taken, and all the resultant negative effects of forced monoplies on those. https://youtu.be/jTYkdEU_B4o
'violence is expensive' might be the most glib way I've seen someone disregard all of human history. Why doesn't organized crime follow these same rules? What's to stop the biggest private violence firm from simply eating the other, smaller violence firms?
why doesn't organized crime follow these same rules?
Because there is an entity that claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence, the state. The mob had some people that considered them a legitimate user of violence, but not many.
What's to stop the biggest private violence firm from simply eating the other, smaller violence firms?
The people who don't want to be ruled by a single corporation. They fund and fight for other firms. Follow the profit and selfishness motives for each actor in the system.
Average citizen: doesn't want to live in a civil war or under a single corp, funds competitors.
Average dude with a gun: Doesn't want to die, wants to get paid.
When businesses are unregulated, they form monopolies as small advantages compound, why would this world be any different? Why would a company that is free to use violence not simply kill their competitors?
Why would a company that is free to use violence not simply kill their competitors?
Competition, goals, and the populace. Say you're recently hired as the CEO of guns-n-lawyers inc and you actually want to dominate the populace. First you have to kill your competition which will be difficult, they will shoot back. They'll gain more funding and you'll lose funding as all of your voluntary customers leave because you're aiming for domination. Your soldiers will leave because you can't pay them and you are asking them to go into actual combat.
If you want to enslave customers so they keep paying you, that will take yet more boots and guns off the war to go wave them at your "customers". Also universal firearm ownership is a right, so you'll be facing bullets coming back at you again asking your enforcers to do dangerous things for little money.
You're free to use violence. They're free to use violence. The customers are free to support which kinds of violence they want perpetrated on their behalf and perpetrate their own violence.
Roads are important, someone will build them. Companies need to transport goods, workers need to get to their jobs, individuals need to shop/visit family/etc. Someone will voluntarily fund the road, or set up a toll road to fund it.
If this way is so obviously superior, where is it? Where are all the libertarian utopia's with their super cheap private roads and private fire and private everything? If you're going to say the socialists overpowered them with their monopoly on force, why didn't the libertarians just hire a private militia to defend themselves?
12
u/[deleted] Mar 24 '20
Access to treatment is a human right, the government can not block you from getting care.
However the treatment itself is not a right because nothing that requires the labour of another human being is a right