Maximum role of Government?

[Explodicle]

Since I was asked to explain "moderate":

I'm a left-libertarian. I believe in self-ownership, non-aggression, and most other libertarian concepts. I differ from most libertarians in that I believe the planet itself and its resources are public property. Thus, I believe a limited state is justified. I chose "moderate" because I think the state should spend on whatever maximizes utility; for example, if some education spending is more cost effective at reducing crime than just spending more on police.

If you believe in non-aggression, how can you justify aggressing on the people you 'protect'?

Would you please elaborate?

[myrkul]

Since I was asked to explain "moderate":

I'm a left-libertarian. I believe in self-ownership, non-aggression, and most other libertarian concepts. I differ from most libertarians in that I believe the planet itself and its resources are public property. Thus, I believe a limited state is justified. I chose "moderate" because I think the state should spend on whatever maximizes utility; for example, if some education spending is more cost effective at reducing crime than just spending more on police.

If you believe in non-aggression, how can you justify aggressing on the people you 'protect'?

Would you please elaborate?

In order to pay for a government, you must institute a tax. A government does not allow competition, by definition. Therefore, you are forcing a service onto people and forcing them to pay.

[ascent]

In order to pay for a government, you must institute a tax. A government does not allow competition, by definition. Therefore, you are forcing a service onto people and forcing them to pay.

Two fallacies in your above statement.

Fallacy #1: A government does not allow competition. Canada is competition to the US.

Fallacy #2: You are forced into this service. Emigrate.

[NghtRppr]

Fallacy #1: A government does not allow competition. Canada is competition to the US.

Within a geographical area.

Fallacy #2: You are forced into this service. Emigrate.

I can't take my land with me.

[ascent]

I can't take my land with me.

Sell it. And don't let the door hit you on the way out.

[NghtRppr]

I can't take my land with me.

Sell it. And don't let the door hit you on the way out.

I don't want to sell my land. I just want you to stay off of it. I'm sorry if that's too much to ask.

[myrkul]

In order to pay for a government, you must institute a tax. A government does not allow competition, by definition. Therefore, you are forcing a service onto people and forcing them to pay.

Two fallacies in your above statement.

Fallacy #1: A government does not allow competition. Canada is competition to the US.

Fallacy #2: You are forced into this service. Emigrate.

1. Awesome, I'd like Canada to provide my Healthcare instead of the US, and I hear the New York Fire Department are pretty awesome, I'll have them provide my fire protection.

2. I would like to choose 'None of the above'. Can i?

[ascent]

1. Awesome, I'd like Canada to provide my Healthcare instead of the US, and I hear the New York Fire Department are pretty awesome, I'll have them provide my fire protection.

2. I would like to choose 'None of the above'. Can i?

No, because you can't have your way in every little particular. Your fantasy libertarian society also does not guarantee desirable services in any one area that you live. Why would you believe that?

Furthermore, I actually know someone who has lived in New York while maintaining a citizenship in Canada.

[myrkul]

1. Awesome, I'd like Canada to provide my Healthcare instead of the US, and I hear the New York Fire Department are pretty awesome, I'll have them provide my fire protection.

2. I would like to choose 'None of the above'. Can i?

No, because you can't have your way in every little particular. Your fantasy libertarian society also does not guarantee desirable services in any one area that you live. Why would you believe that?

Furthermore, I actually know someone who has lived in New York while maintaining a citizenship in Canada.

If I can't tell the government, "No, thank you", that's a violent monopoly, and is no different than the mafia offering you 'Protection'

[ascent]

If I can't tell the government, "No, thank you", that's a violent monopoly, and is no different than the mafia offering you 'Protection'

I apparently can't tell my landlord "No, thank you" to renting the extra 50 square feet in my bedroom that I do not use. Yet I don't accuse them of anything. I can move if I want.

And when I bought lunch today, I was unable to buy a sandwich and half a salad, although they offered a half sandwich and half salad. I could've gone elsewhere though.

Likewise, you are free to move. And don't let the door hit you on the way out.

[myrkul]

If I can't tell the government, "No, thank you", that's a violent monopoly, and is no different than the mafia offering you 'Protection'

I apparently can't tell my landlord "No, thank you" to renting the extra 50 square feet in my bedroom that I do not use. Yet I don't accuse them of anything. I can move if I want.

And when I bought lunch today, I was unable to buy a sandwich and half a salad, although they offered a half sandwich and half salad. I could've gone elsewhere though.

Likewise, you are free to move. And don't let the door hit you on the way out.

And, if you told the restauranteur that you would not like to eat today, he would shoot you, right?
And your landlord, He locks you in a cage if you tell him you'd rather not live there, yes?

No. Those are both PRIVATE industries. not governments.

[NghtRppr]

I apparently can't tell my landlord "No, thank you" to renting the extra 50 square feet in my bedroom that I do not use. Yet I don't accuse them of anything. I can move if I want.

The landlord owns his property. The government doesn't own my property.

My house, my rules. vs. Your house, my rules.

[Hawker]

I apparently can't tell my landlord "No, thank you" to renting the extra 50 square feet in my bedroom that I do not use. Yet I don't accuse them of anything. I can move if I want.

The landlord owns his property. The government doesn't own my property.

My house, my rules. vs. Your house, my rules.

You own property if there is a government.  Otherwise, its not yours - its simply a place no-one with a bigger militia has taken off you yet.

[NghtRppr]

You own property if there is a government.  Otherwise, its not yours - its simply a place no-one with a bigger militia has taken off you yet.

Until another government with a bigger army does the same thing. Governments aren't magical. They have the same weaknesses that any private system has plus the added handicap of not being subject to market forces.

[myrkul]

I apparently can't tell my landlord "No, thank you" to renting the extra 50 square feet in my bedroom that I do not use. Yet I don't accuse them of anything. I can move if I want.

The landlord owns his property. The government doesn't own my property.

My house, my rules. vs. Your house, my rules.

You own property if there is a government.  Otherwise, its not yours - its simply a place no-one with a bigger militia has taken off you yet.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Eminent_domain

You were saying?

[Hawker]

You own property if there is a government.  Otherwise, its not yours - its simply a place no-one with a bigger militia has taken off you yet.

Until another government with a bigger army does the same thing. Governments aren't magical. They have the same weaknesses that any private system has plus the added handicap of not being subject to market forces.

To say you own land but don't believe in government is contradictory.  Ownership of land means that there are title deeds and a property registry where boundaries are recorded and inheritances / sales are recorded and courts where rights can be upheld. 

[myrkul]

You own property if there is a government.  Otherwise, its not yours - its simply a place no-one with a bigger militia has taken off you yet.

Until another government with a bigger army does the same thing. Governments aren't magical. They have the same weaknesses that any private system has plus the added handicap of not being subject to market forces.

To say you own land but don't believe in government is contradictory.  Ownership of land means that there are title deeds and a property registry where boundaries are recorded and inheritances / sales are recorded and courts where rights can be upheld. 

Uhm... no. Those are the means that government uses to record ownership. And land documentation can be provided for privately, as well.

[NghtRppr]

To say you own land but don't believe in government is contradictory.  Ownership of land means that there are title deeds and a property registry where boundaries are recorded and inheritances / sales are recorded and courts where rights can be upheld.

All of that can exist without a state.

[Hawker]

To say you own land but don't believe in government is contradictory.  Ownership of land means that there are title deeds and a property registry where boundaries are recorded and inheritances / sales are recorded and courts where rights can be upheld.

All of that can exist without a state.

Do tell how a land registry, court system and police to enforce judgements can exist without a state?

[NghtRppr]

Do tell how a land registry, court system and police to enforce judgements can exist without a state?

The same way you start any other business. What exactly are you having a problem with understanding? It helps if you're a little bit more specific so I don't have to detail an entire private legal system in response to a single question.