We should take care of our history.

So you're saying the buying power should contain a level of force

I'm saying the monopoly of force should be in the hands of a democratically elected local authority, to enforce the rules of commerce so that they stay reasonable and in tune with the local zeitgeist.

Basically people who are capable and willing to sit and negotiate will end up destroying "good things", therefore people who are incapable to sit and negotiate should have a monopoly on force over the negotiative table

It's not about competence, necessarily. You can have a competent dictator, but he won't necessarily serve the interests of the weakest in society. It's about building a culture where as many people as possible can thrive and that requires that a representative of the local population be present to hash out those concerns with the buying and selling part.

I understand it's not about competence, I'm just trying to understand how you're justifying your position to see if it's morally superior

And if those parts refuse to co-operate with the local population, they should be the ones submitting.

It's a matter of community above all.

An outside economic actor should not be able to tear down a community with the force of his wallet. If the local community does not want a shopping mart in the city centrum i see no reason why anyone should be able to erect one.

What I see is that you're willing to give some people (in this case a perceived majority of people) a monopoly on force in order to undermine the economic pursuits of others (in this case a perceived minority of people), and I believe you justify that by saying that said economic pursuit is more destructive overall.

I'm not saying, however. That there should be no limits to government force, but I think there should be limits to what corporations and actors in the marketplace can and cannot do.

I also think there should be protections, as many as possible, levvied towards the minority.

I see your point, I'm just wondering why you think said force monopoly that undermines the free market is preferable to a few destroyed buildings

It's not only about those buildings, it's about the cultural heritage, and the monuments to our history.

A lot of historical monuments have been destroyed by people who believe that they should hold a monopoly on force

Absolutely.

But every monopoly of force is not equal.

In contrast, I don't think I can remember anywhere near as many cases where a profit-oriented mind has done that

I mean, I make no difference between an old woman's home that have been in her family for generations and the arc'd triumph.

Lately a lot of historic statues have been destroyed or vandalized, and the people who've done so had no interest in purchasing them beforehand

I think the consent of the governed; the majority should be represented when the community has contentions about a move.

In fact I would argue people who are willing to put up the money to buy a historic statue are far less keen on destroying it, speaking on average

No matter what that move is.

If that is true, then how effective is that regulation? I see nothing being done about those statues that have been destroyed

I agree that that is terrible, but it has nothing to do with my argument. I would argue that those were systems of organization that failed in upholding the will of the people, or perhaps the will of the people was with the iconoclasts who destroyed them and in that case I would be in the minority that wants history to be preserved.

I think the will of the people is either upheld by the people or it isn't upheld at all

I like to draw a comparison to Star Wars under Disney

The problem is that there is a clear contrast between anarchy and monopoly of force.

And a clear lifecycle for a human organization.

Meaning it grows exponentially until it is unable to.

I'm not sure what you mean

If you dismantle government; business would take on the mantles of government and become like government.

Because there would be a vacuum.

I know, and I accept that fact, but that's not a moral argument but a practical one

As far as I am concerned, no moral philosophy that isn't concerned with practical application is of much use to anyone.

I beg to differ

The practicality of spreading ideas is well documented

I mean why advocate a position that is impractical and not applicable to real-life?

You never know what comes next, everything starts with an idea

Why not try to find out to what extent an idea is applicable and practical and advocate for that?

We have done that already