|
⇤ ← Revision 1 as of 2012-06-22 16:37:09
Size: 1181
Comment:
|
Size: 1153
Comment:
|
| Deletions are marked like this. | Additions are marked like this. |
| Line 3: | Line 3: |
| To give full credit, this argument is due to Childs' letter to Rand (http://www.isil.org/ayn-rand/childs-open-letter.html), summarized: | To give full credit, this argument is due to [[Books/OpenLetterToRand|Childs' letter to Rand]], summarized: |
According to Max Weber's definition, the state is 'an entity which successfully claims a "monopoly on the use of violence"', i.e., a regional gang (the definition had "legitimate" in it, but that makes no sense, since every such monopoly claimant declares itself "legitimate", and is the sole decider). What makes the state an immoral/evil entity follows from this definition.
To give full credit, this argument is due to Childs' letter to Rand, summarized:
1. If the state initiates or threatens violence against peaceful people (extortion to fund itself, persecute for victimless "crimes", violently enforces regulation against people doing no harm, stopping competition with it, etc.), then it is clearly an immoral entity, for such violence/threats are immoral.
2. If it does not, then it is no longer, by Weber's definition, a state - if it just offers services in a competitive market to those that individually sign up for them, does not extort, does not force itself on those that don't want it; it is a business.
Thus we see that the state is necessarily an immoral entity (or does not exist). (DBR)