Do you agree that people have different standards of what is good and what is not? If you don't like something and I'm forcing you to swallow it, you won't feel any good (even if it's good for someone else).
Now, one way to resolve it is to come up with some boundaries that we cannot cross (e.g. "do not kill") and then everyone does what they please.
Another way is to say "stronger/bigger majority can press others to comply with what those in majority feel is good".
Do you realise that any law is a threat of murder? Even if it does not say so. If I make some customers happy, but you get jealous and angry and use a law against me to make pay a fine or shut down business, you are basically threatening me with a violent police force. If I don't comply, police will take me. If I try to protect myself, they may kill me.
What's my argument for you: if you want some protection, go make it, no problem. I'm not the one who will threaten you with violence. If you find a great business model to offer protection, monitoring, insurance etc. and my company goes out of business, well, that was my risk and my opportunity. And if you go out of business, it's the same: no one gets threatened, robbed or killed. We both just try to solve the problem in a peaceful manner. But when you start talking about regulation, then it is real threat of violence, guns, prisons, rape and confiscation.
Oh there's nothing in the world like libertarian absolutism is there? Everything can be reduced to 'violence', therefore everything you disagree with is demonstrably, objectively wrong.
Here's one major flaw in your thinking "We both just try to solve the problem in a peaceful manner."
You ascribe honourable motives and noble behaviours to all actors. You are demonstrably wrong where human behaviour is concerned.
Anyway, we're no longer talking about taxis at this point, and I'm not up for a full discussion on the libertarian model. Needless to say, we don't all see the world in as black and white a way as you.
You ascribe honourable motives and noble behaviours to all actors. You are demonstrably wrong where human behaviour is concerned.
Then by this definition, you should be more concerned with giving the power to a monopoly which is a state. People would surely be very likely to abuse this kind of power. When you a have a private company, it goes out of business the moment its customers stop paying money. Government doesn't have to worry about that happening, because it can force you to pay. And you can only vote once in a number of years.
History shows us that merchants and service providers are constantly, constantly out to deceive and screw us. It's just a fact and it's why we have so many consumer protections.
The government is also not to be trusted, it's true, but at least we can vote them out.
Once in n years. And you don't really vote them out. You get the same parties and interests screwing you all over again.
You just don't see consumer protection as a service while it is - and it's monopolized by the government. If you had private consumer protection agencies financed directly, then the moment this agency starts screwing its customers, it's out of business, because people stop paying. Compare this to consumer protection via a government: you can't simply stop paying, you can't effectively influence how an agency works and you don't have a choice between various protection agencies that best suit your interests as a consumer.
Now tell me why should I ever choose government over a private market given this situation? In other words, can you convince me (and not force me to comply) that a government can protect my interests better?
What power does a private agency have? None. That's why you choose a government agency, so that when someone starts selling cheap crap to kids that's covered in toxic paint, it can be shut down.
> Do you realise that any law is a threat of murder? Even if it does not say so. If I make some customers happy, but you get jealous and angry and use a law against me to make pay a fine or shut down business, you are basically threatening me with a violent police force. If I don't comply, police will take me. If I try to protect myself, they may kill me.
"the libertarian model disgusts me"
Do you agree that people have different standards of what is good and what is not? If you don't like something and I'm forcing you to swallow it, you won't feel any good (even if it's good for someone else).
Now, one way to resolve it is to come up with some boundaries that we cannot cross (e.g. "do not kill") and then everyone does what they please.
Another way is to say "stronger/bigger majority can press others to comply with what those in majority feel is good".
Do you realise that any law is a threat of murder? Even if it does not say so. If I make some customers happy, but you get jealous and angry and use a law against me to make pay a fine or shut down business, you are basically threatening me with a violent police force. If I don't comply, police will take me. If I try to protect myself, they may kill me.
What's my argument for you: if you want some protection, go make it, no problem. I'm not the one who will threaten you with violence. If you find a great business model to offer protection, monitoring, insurance etc. and my company goes out of business, well, that was my risk and my opportunity. And if you go out of business, it's the same: no one gets threatened, robbed or killed. We both just try to solve the problem in a peaceful manner. But when you start talking about regulation, then it is real threat of violence, guns, prisons, rape and confiscation.