Of course it would be easy. Private companies can easily take people's property - just point a gun at them. It worked well for the East India company.
If we can eliminate government, we can eliminate the people's protection racket. This will allow private companies to flourish, and the weak to be eliminated.
The East India Company was a "private company" in the loosest possible sense. It was operating with the explicit sanction of the British Empire and was effectively a government in its own right.
I find it amusing that you would cite that example as an argument FOR government, as I think it stands as a classic example of the worst of what government enables.
> The East India Company was a "private company" in the loosest possible sense. It was operating with the explicit sanction of the British Empire and was effectively a government in its own right.
Every company that exists as separate juridical entity (e.g., every corporation, for starters) does so with the explicit sanction of a government and is an exercise of government power.
The East India Company was a private company in exactly the same sense as any other "private" corporation.
The East India Company was a private company in exactly the same sense as any other "private" corporation.
That's just being pedantic. It was a "private company" yes, but a private company that was granted powers far beyond those given to pretty much any other private company. They were allowed to maintain their own private army and effectively rule large parts of India as though they were the government. That's a HUGE difference from the typical private company.
Not sure what you're getting at here.. are you saying, that, without government, the East India company wouldn't be stealing people's lands?
It seems like you didn't think your cunning plan all the way through, because you seem to be implying that you need more government regulation on what private corporations can do, correct?
Or are you saying that, without government regulation, the East India company wouldn't have formed their own private army?
Do you think private armed militias, that are legal today in the US, be allowed to exist?
You're going to have to reconcile your position of "less government" with "leads to more private armies".
are you saying, that, without government, the East India company wouldn't be stealing people's lands?
Most likely. Of course it's all hypotheticals, but since we - for the most part - define government as that entity which has (mostly) a monopoly on the use of force, a private company would not generally be considered empowered to do that without the sanction of a government.
Or are you saying that, without government regulation, the East India company wouldn't have formed their own private army?
Correct.
Do you think private armed militias, that are legal today in the US, be allowed to exist?
Of course they can exist. Now, of course, we're at the bottom of the stack, so to speak. What if one of these private militias "goes rogue" and commits unspeakable atrocities? Who's to stop that, right? And I guess your answer would be "the government"? I'd argue that the answer is "some other voluntarily assembled mutual defense entity, or no one". Anyway, all we've really shown here is that if you drill down deep enough, human conflict is inevitable and at some level we may never get away from "force vs force". But I argue against institutionalizing the idea of using force to compel people to do things, and keep the use of force reserved for self defense.
You're going to have to reconcile your position of "less government" with "leads to more private armies".
I'm not opposed to private armies in general. I'm opposed to private armies, operating with the sanction of the State, and essentially becoming one more arm of the government, and being used to violate people's rights. Or, you could even omit the "with the sanction of the State" bit, and the rest would still stand. The problem is, when we accept the presence and authority of something like a State, and then it endorses or sanctions "evil" (for lack of a better term) acts, it's that much harder to muster opposition to those acts, since they're nominally "legal".
>Or are you saying that, without government regulation, the East India company wouldn't have formed their own private army?
>Correct.
This is why libertinism is often relegated to that of a sweet, innocent 12 year old idealists, because they do not know about the real world.
In the real world, what happens without government is that warlords form. This happens throughout history, such as colonial expansion into indian territory, or after the collapse of the Soviet Union, etc. And it's happening RIGHT NOW in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Sudan.
You don't need a state to sanction violence for violence to happen. Violence will happen when there isn't a state to sanction it.
This is why the correct solution that adults agree on is a strong, centralized government with power. The whole point of a strong, centralized powerful government is to limit the rights and freedoms of individuals, so people AREN'T allowed to do what they want.
Because, when people are allowed to do what they want, they form violent armies. Government limits peoples rights and freedoms to do that.
To stop this, you need a) a strong, powerful government, and b) that government to say "no violence."
Government is the social contract you offer to other people. And only though a social contract can you prevent violence.
Are you implying that "warlords" are better than the US government?
Which system is better? A libertarian warlord system? Or the US government?
What exactly makes a warlord system more favorable than the US government?
If you want an example of a government, you don't need to bring up Stalin's Russia or Nazi Germany.. you have an example of government right here in the US!
Clearly you thought through your cunning "less government" libertarian plan, and have concluded that such a system, which results in warlords, would be better than the US government, right? Let's hear that rationale then.
It has not been demonstrated that a libertarian system necessarily results in warlords, so the entire premise of your argument is unsupported. How about you prove that assertion?
And please drop the silly "cunning plan" business, this is Hacker News, not reddit.
No, I'm stating (not implying) that the hazards of a too-strong central government (such as the Soviet Union under Stalin, or Germany under Hitler) are far worse than "warlords".
You're pretending that the only options are no central government at all, on the one hand, and an all-powerful central government on the other.
"Not sure what you're getting at here.. are you saying, that, without government, the East India company wouldn't be stealing people's lands?"
Can you give me a plausible scenario for how, without a government and its concomitant military power, a band of people from a small island in the Atlantic ocean could take over the entire Indian subcontinent?
Which other private companies have been given the authority to more or less declare war and occupy territory as they see fit? I guess you could argue Halliburton comes close, but the point is that most private companies aren't given those powers.
If we can eliminate government, we can eliminate the people's protection racket. This will allow private companies to flourish, and the weak to be eliminated.