: LARS: Unchecked power is likely to result in disaster wherever it is found- governments, individuals or companies. Or any combination of these.exactly and who is most difficult to check? The one that checks itself - government.
: LARS: SO does the support of the state absolve such companies?
it implicates both as you have said, morally as well.
: LARS: People's failure to hand over money to those in need counts as an omission and generally, as a matter of convention when a person fails to do something it is not considered to be a cause of what follows.
I am pleased you understand that Lars.
: But just because it is a convention, does not mean that we cannot find certain situations where reason demands that justice be done. ie where an omission can act as a cause.
when does that happen?
: LARS: So, this is no reason to do away with government. The ultimate guilt here lies with the shopkeepers, the governments being mere accessories.
They couldnt do it without government - people would shoot back.
: More violence, more death.
Assumption that left alone people become vicious killers? Well people all over are not watched day in day out - and they dont use those opportunities to commit crimes. Why? because they dont want to, rather than fear of prison.
: Government is a sign of civilised society. It is supposed to mediate between the citizens, to allow for a peaceful and beneficial coexistence.
Does it do that more successfully than if people decided among themselves how to associate do you think?
: That it does not do this at present is no reason to condemn government outright.
Any government that believes itself superior in mediating the free association of people is condemnable. A governemnt existing only to stop individuals from initiating force against eachother (a so called nightwatchman state) would seem the best form.
: But really Gee, i thgink i must have misunderstood you, for assuredly NOBODY would ever assert that we do not need governemnt regualtion of business. Ever since there has been business there has been a need of regualtion. That is plain as grass is green.
It may be in your eyes, that doesnt make it a 'truth'
: 1) That there should be no government regulation of companies
: 2) That there should be no governmental ownership of companies
they become the same thing. lets say your neighbour has a car but you can legislate what kind of things he does with it, and you add every year another raft of controls - well is it really his car now? youre mediating nearly every decision regarding it. there is one end point to legislation of of this sort and that is totalitarianism.
None.
