Re:Controlling your own wealth as a basic human right
by aninhumer on Wednesday January 25, 2017 @02:27PM
(#13485042)
This still isn't a great example. It would be perfectly simple for you to come to a voluntary arrangement with Bob in exchange for his protection, without suggesting that he's inherently entitled to anything.
The real counter-examples comes at larger scales. At a certain point it becomes impractical for a large number of people to individually make voluntary agreements about their responsibilities to each other, so generally people agree to some system of deciding rules, and agree to the outcome of those decisions in advance, without consenting to each one individually.
Re:Controlling your own wealth as a basic human right
by enraged_camel on Wednesday January 25, 2017 @03:54PM
(#13485972)
Yes, obviously it's not a great example, but I used it because the parent seemed incapable of contemplating any scenario more complex than "a few people on an island".
Here is a better one: on the island there is you, me and Bob. Bob does not participate in our trades, but is responsible for things like protecting the island from neighboring tribes, putting out forest fires we accidentally start while camping, and building the paths and roads we use to get around the island.
These things not only benefit us, it can easily be argued that our everyday trades would not be possible without them. Without roads I would not be able to reach you, without Bob's protection I would be robbed or worse on the way to meet you.
This is why Bob is inherently entitled to a portion of our income. Without Bob, the environment in which you and I can comfortably conduct business would not exist.