|
The fact that the government is either violent or irrelevant has never (as far as I know) been denied by anyone of any political philosophy. As I have previously pointed out, many government actions give value (ie are "relevant") even if not legislated or enforced. For example, statements by government ministers that X is socially deleterious behviour affect social norms and thereby affect the smooth functioning of society, even though such statements do not have legislative backing. In any case, as I have also pointed out previously, Libertarians err, even in their own terms, when they say that (non-irrelevant) government action is based on violence. Much of it is, at best, based on the threat of violence. Yet, even then, much compliance with government legislation is voluntary and does not require even the threat of violence. For example, people are happy to obey the government dictate to drive on the left-hand side of the road and would do so even if there were no penalties against breaching this rule. You have never shown that freedom v government doesn't hold. Incorrect. Drawing on Titmus's blood study - The Gift Relationship, I have shown that a society in which there is no prohibition on the sale enhances the negative freedom of being able to sell something, but reduces the positive freedom to give away something (blood) that cannot (legally) be sold. Thus, we do not face a simply either government or freedom choice; government enhances some freedoms, and reduces others. Richard Smart
| 
