I know who he is (he also introduced the concept of the "protestant work ethic" in sociology: I took a sociology class when I was a freshman), and suspected already you were referring to him in part. I simply don't agree with the position based on his observation:
As I said, I don't believe government should have a monopoly over the use of force (or while we're at it, the delegation of who can use this power by said government). Anyone and everyone can be involved in this, and not require the permission or approval of government, so long as they themselves do not initiate force, or can be demonstrated with certainty or near certainty to intend initiation of force (which is where prevention comes in--which as I stated, should ideally never involve force). To give government that sole power to monopolize and delegate risks my concerns.
besides, as he himself said, his statement was an observation of politics in practice (in which case, he is pretty much on the tin here: governments do act that way), not how it should be (whether he thought it should be this way or not, is to me irrelevant: doesn't change my reservations). Just because it is, doesn't mean it should be. And just because it should be, and is possible, doesn't mean it is.
after-all, people must help one another, doesn't mean they actually always do.
at least, that's how I see it.![]()
Bookmarks