alt Hacker NewsWhat im saying is that this distinction is arbitrary. Running a society isn't all about punishing crimes. That's just one minor aspect of a states responsibilities. Standardization is another, arguably more important one.
What im saying is that this distinction is arbitrary. Running a society isn't all about punishing crimes. That's just one minor aspect of a states responsibilities. Standardization is another, arguably more important one.
It's far from minor. To ban physical force from social relationships, people need an institution charged with the task of protecting their rights. People's rights can only be violated by physical force. To prevent this, the government's only solution is to hold a legal monopoly on the use of physical force.
If this vested power remains unchecked and unlimited, the government will violate the rights of its own citizens. That's why we should limit its power to retaliatory use.
Standardization is a very valuable asset, I don't deny that. But:
1. Standardization is not limited to forced standardization;
2. It's better to live in a world not fully standardized than to accept the premise that it's right to violate rights for a good cause. The "good cause" shifts the question from "should rights be violated?" to "what kind of violation do you want?" Once we accept that, we lose to totalitarianism. A man who says "let's violate a tiny fraction of rights" would lose to a man who declares "let's violate rights of thousands."