Then how would we have laws written, executed and enforced? I haven’t read the books myself, but John Locke wrote two called The treaties of government and they were essentially the entire foundation of western financial and political systems.
What, do you wanna go back to the dark Middle Ages of markets and spice trades?
John locke talks about natural law, meaning law that focuses on what's called negative rights. These are the basis of the non aggression principle, which is a quintessential pillar of libertarian thought.
Laws form as generalized rules that prevent the freedom of individuals to commit violence freely, but are rewarded with the fruits of civilization.
Many confuse the government with civilization.
Originally posted by ilikecomicsLibertarians need a slap imhi.
John locke talks about natural law, meaning law that focuses on what's called negative rights. These are the basis of the non aggression principle, which is a quintessential pillar of libertarian thought.Laws form as generalized rules that prevent the freedom of individuals to commit violence freely, but are rewarded with the fruits of civilization.
Many confuse the government with civilization.
Originally posted by Klaw
The wealthy get away with it since they use loopholes and buy off politicians.The poor cannot do that.
A relatively small number of the rich pay half the tax burden currently.
https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2020-update/
No. The legislature write the laws, the executive create the laws and the judiciary enforce the laws when put into dispute. He explains this vividly that one group are elected to write law the people want implemented, another group put those laws into effect, human made laws, not natural law, and another group decides if the laws have been used correctly. This is John Locke’s proposal of how a government should be run. It’s based upon how the people can rule themselves as a nation, and not through individual chaos, or anarchy, as you called it.
Originally posted by ilikecomics
John locke talks about natural law, meaning law that focuses on what's called negative rights. These are the basis of the non aggression principle, which is a quintessential pillar of libertarian thought.Laws form as generalized rules that prevent the freedom of individuals to commit violence freely, but are rewarded with the fruits of civilization.
Many confuse the government with civilization.
Originally posted by ilikecomics
Wow, those oil companies must be wildly powerful to not only go against the wishes of the united states' government and it's armies, but to also overthrow the Iraq government.So you're saying, without any state interference whatsoever, a private company invaded a foreign country and set up shop against the local government's wishes ?
I'll look into the other examples after we deal with this.
Odd inference because I didn't say any of those things.
The things I did say are in my post and are facts.
Predatory, powerful companies exert far more influence than weak governments. How the country's governance became weak isn't relevant.
In many country's cases they never had functional government in the first place.
@ Blake political theory has evolved since Locke.
Von mises also believed in a night watchmen state, but his protege, rothbard, was radically anarchist.
@ Jaden
My argument is big destructive companies can only do what they do with state approval.
The same way big destructive states can only do what they do with the approval of the masses, at least a critical amount.
Originally posted by jaden_2.0This even happened in the US with the building of the railroads, the uses of oil, and the construction of steel. Take the ludlow massacre as a prime example of how rich corporations can easily force people to work in dangerous mines and get killed while Harriman, Rockefeller, Ford, Chase etc. didn’t give a ****. That was fascism and all done by corporations.
Odd inference because I didn't say any of those things.The things I did say are in my post and are facts.
Predatory, powerful companies exert far more influence than weak governments. How the country's governance became weak isn't relevant.
In many country's cases they never had functional government in the first place.
Originally posted by ilikecomicsI mentioned Locke because he was arguably the father of liberalism.
@ Blake political theory has evolved since Locke.Von mises also believed in a night watchmen state, but his protege, rothbard, was radically anarchist.
@ Jaden
My argument is big destructive companies can only do what they do with state approval.
The same way big destructive states can only do what they do with the approval of the masses, at least a critical amount.
Originally posted by ilikecomics
@ Blake political theory has evolved since Locke.Von mises also believed in a night watchmen state, but his protege, rothbard, was radically anarchist.
@ Jaden
My argument is big destructive companies can only do what they do with state approval.
The same way big destructive states can only do what they do with the approval of the masses, at least a critical amount.
And yet the less a government is able to restrain them, the more destructive corporations behave.
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
And yet the less a government is able to restrain them, the more destructive corporations behave.
And yet when the state interferes in trade like prohibition or the war on drugs it's also catastrophic.
The state doesn't restrain them, it's a discount for the company.
For example, if du pont contaminates drinking water and has to pay the state a couple million instead of paying out restitution to it's victims (how justice would work in a free market with justice based retributive justice), which would include massive inter generational fertility rates, baby mortality, lower IQs, etc. The bill would be immeasurable, again in contrast to a million dollar bill that only a destructive company, who wasn't accountable to it's victims, could afford to pay.
Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
I am not a commie, I am a Trade unionist.
Yeah, I was pushing into the autistic persona on my end. Commie is flagrant and reminds me of king of the kill (show about fictional rednecks) or people smashing lite beer cans in their heads.
Not trying to misrepresent you, good sir.
Edit: I do think your beliefs if enacted would lead to coercion, however, just to be clear.