But if most people made a deal with "Dick's protection Inc." that they would just go and steal rich peoples money(which is the moral norm of today)and give them to poor slackers, then what could "Bob's" do for you, the moral one, so that your property would be safe. Yes, they could always war against Dick's, but there is no way of saying that the moral cause of "Bob's" would win.
Why would Bob's be interested in morality, if the immoral guy would pay him more?
There are two separate issues here: the legitimacy of government and the legitimacy of taxation. Hierarchically, in changing from current to future state, Rand emphasized retrenching government to its proper role as the primary, with the issue of voluntary financing being easily solved after illegitimate expenses were eliminated.
XO, you were wonderfully lucid here. I like your analogy of the homeless guy washing your car window without your consent then charging you for it.
A scenari though - what if Bob charged you but didn't deliver his service, just took your money, would not pay insurance, and actually became threatening when you said you'd pay no more?
You'd probably say that you'd go to another protection agency. But what if Bob's became so big that it became hard or impossible to do that? What if Bob's agency refused to listen to arbitration from the community? Bob would have become de fact a War Lord becoming rich and powerful. I could think of other scenarios.
Great vid. The whole implied consent/social contract idea is such bullshit, moral consistency out the window. There is no such thing as an objective democracy. I'd wager to say such a thing is impossible.
bump!
But if most people made a deal with "Dick's protection Inc." that they would just go and steal rich peoples money(which is the moral norm of today)and give them to poor slackers, then what could "Bob's" do for you, the moral one, so that your property would be safe. Yes, they could always war against Dick's, but there is no way of saying that the moral cause of "Bob's" would win.
Why would Bob's be interested in morality, if the immoral guy would pay him more?
JLCMJelly 3 years ago
And there it is: objectivism sanctions the initiation of force to stop people from seeking alternative ways of ensuring protection.
brainpolice2 4 years ago
It still thrills me a little to find people like you (although I don't understand you assigning moral terminology to actions).
feedmemyself 4 years ago
There are two separate issues here: the legitimacy of government and the legitimacy of taxation. Hierarchically, in changing from current to future state, Rand emphasized retrenching government to its proper role as the primary, with the issue of voluntary financing being easily solved after illegitimate expenses were eliminated.
jwoodswce 4 years ago
This doesn't address the issue that, for a state to exist, it has to initiate force to prevent competition from arising.
XOmniverse 4 years ago
I can't address that briefly with comments, so I'll need to make a video.
jwoodswce 4 years ago
XO, you were wonderfully lucid here. I like your analogy of the homeless guy washing your car window without your consent then charging you for it.
A scenari though - what if Bob charged you but didn't deliver his service, just took your money, would not pay insurance, and actually became threatening when you said you'd pay no more?
fr3thinker 4 years ago
You'd probably say that you'd go to another protection agency. But what if Bob's became so big that it became hard or impossible to do that? What if Bob's agency refused to listen to arbitration from the community? Bob would have become de fact a War Lord becoming rich and powerful. I could think of other scenarios.
fr3thinker 4 years ago
"Bob would have become de fact a War Lord becoming rich and powerful."
So, Bob became a state then? :)
XOmniverse 4 years ago
That is what I was thinking...
Or just a bully.
fr3thinker 4 years ago
XO, I think you will make a great teacher.
fr3thinker 4 years ago
Great vid.
Neonsolid 4 years ago
Great vid. The whole implied consent/social contract idea is such bullshit, moral consistency out the window. There is no such thing as an objective democracy. I'd wager to say such a thing is impossible.
LibertyIsNotGiven 4 years ago
5 stars
scottferrie 4 years ago