Re:What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)
by thegrimmest on Thursday January 06, 2022 @01:36PM
(#29827799)
The state is compatible with liberty in so far as it acts to secure the liberty of its citizens. Again, liberty here meaning, basically, freedom from violence by other people. A state which acts to protect its citizens liberty is legitimate (in my view) regardless of how its members come to authority. Democracy (in one form or another) seems to be the least-worst option for administering this state (defining the process, etc.), but to me, is it not the source of its legitimacy.
Re:What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)
by wbsss4412 on Thursday January 06, 2022 @01:56PM
(#29828113)
You just said that interference with private transactions was by definition a violation of liberty, so any outside action of the state would be at best a violation of liberty to secure liberty, somehow. Which, is somewhat nonsensical. There is no well defined liberty math.
Re:What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)
by thegrimmest on Thursday January 06, 2022 @01:58PM
(#29828152)
> a violation of liberty to secure liberty
You've pretty much got it. These are the only legitimate violations of liberty. Doesn't seem nonsensical to me.
Yes yes, “keeping the peace” but how is such an authority deemed to be legitimate? Who gets to define due process? How are they funded if not by taxation?
At the end of the day I don’t understand how you aren’t just an anarchist.