> Of course, anyone powerful enough to protect you in the absence of the state has no reason to work for you rather than enslave you.
I think the libertarian point is that this same logic applies to states themselves.
Note how recently polities have taken away the freedom of restaurants to choose to allow smoking, selling certain sizes of drinks; the freedom of parents to choose their children's education and so forth.
> Note how recently polities have taken away the freedom of restaurants to choose to allow smoking, selling certain sizes of drinks; the freedom of parents to choose their children's education and so forth.
Any policy related to the things you've mentioned were or were not enacted by popular support, on those issues in particular. Brutal slaver warlord can take away restaurants, high fructose corn syrup, and your children with a single vote.
Any policy related to the things you've mentioned were or were not enacted by popular support, on those issues in particular. Brutal slaver warlord can take away restaurants, high fructose corn syrup, and your children with a single vote.
Nice try, but no dice.
Most of those things weren't voted on. Most of them were decided by fiat of the slaver warlord (a mayor) and couple of his family members (some board or commission).
Understanding how it works doesn't mean that one has to agree that it's democratic; it's at best a mix of democratic and non-democratic elements, and for some that might be equivalent to "not really democratic". And that's even assuming that the mechanisms are working properly, and not subverted - which is a big assumption.
> Note how recently polities have taken away the freedom of restaurants to choose to allow smoking, selling certain sizes of drinks; the freedom of parents to choose their children's education and so forth.
Terrifying. And it has been going on for a long while. Remember when shops in the US had the right to sell their wares to whoever they wanted, back in the good old days before the Civil Rights movements? Those were the days. </sarcasm>
More seriously, regulation takes some freedom away, but you have to look at the big picture. Smoking is harmful, even second-hand smoking, and public health efforts to reduce its effects should be applauded and not lamented.
When you're referring to days before the civil rights movement, I presume you're hinting at laws which required private businesses to create separate facilities for blacks if they wanted to do business with blacks.
No, he's referring to back before Congress told private businesses that they weren't allowed to refuse to serve black people. When Congress took away the right of family owned restaurants to exercise their freedom of association with only white people.
More seriously, regulation takes some freedom away, but you have to look at the big picture. Smoking is harmful, even second-hand smoking, and public health efforts to reduce its effects should be applauded and not lamented.
Oh great, then just ban it completely. And ban alcohol and sugar, and all sorts of other things that are "bad" for us.
And it's silly to try and convince someone to applaud vs lament. Do you seriously think you're going to change anyone's opinion?
Some people just hate individual responsibility. You would think that on HN, it would be different, but even this place has been infected with destructive, freedom-hating statist thinking. What a shame.
I think the libertarian point is that this same logic applies to states themselves.
Note how recently polities have taken away the freedom of restaurants to choose to allow smoking, selling certain sizes of drinks; the freedom of parents to choose their children's education and so forth.