Message from @Fitzydog
Discord ID: 475061509320343573
You're creating a false dichotomy between "What things are now" and "Total elimination of the state"
Can I finish mine?
NP
First, we need to define what we mean by 'state', and its functions, as well as the relationship between it, and the citizens of said state.
The function of the state is to protect the rights of the citizenry, as well as their property.
*How* they do this can be up for debate
It can be as simple as a document, 'license' (like the GPL), or an industry standard
i disagree with your definition
how can your property be protected if it is routinely being taken away from you by the state involuntarily
?
Where in what I said, did I describe taxation?
You said that the states function is to protect its citizens property
I didn't say how though
fair, i assumed you implied taxation
In reality, the state only protects rights, and included in that is a citizens right to protect his property. Protection from foreign invaders is separate from that.
You can do this completely by yourself requiring no outside help, and the state only has to protect the 'framework' in which disputes are handled.
Namely, that's a court system. So you can have private arbiters, all using the same 'law standard' and that would be a 'state'.
a necessary feature of a state however is that it has the monopoly on "insert service here" over a geographical region. Therefore private alternatives are not possible
Is that necessary?
yes
The only monoply it needs to have, is that of laws, and national defense
Ok, granted those for the moment
Would this state engage in other activities besides from these services?
It shouldn't have to
would the governnment be crowding out any other company from the markets it enters
if its funded through taxation?
What market is it entering?
lets say schools for example
Why is it controlling the schools?
That's not its job
According to the nations constitution its allowed to operate publically funded schools
That's your own problem, bud. We're talking about the hypothetical here
No im posing the argument on why the government should not enter markets
at all
because it crowds out alternatives
Yeah, I agree
Common defense, and a lawbook should not be marketable though
So ur a minarchist with the exceptions of Laws and Borders?
That *is* a minarchist. The necessary minimum.
Laws and borders are the only legitimate domain of the state
Would your "laws" include an executie, legislativa and judiciary branch?
That's all unnecessary overhead. What's the point of it?
Just print a lawbook.
would they need enforcement though (Executive)