I don't own my property because the state says so; I own it because society says so.
The state isn't society, although it would love to have us believe so.
The state is a malignant cancer on society, masquerading as its immune system.
I don't own my property because the state says so; I own it because society says so.
The state isn't society, although it would love to have us believe so.
The state is a malignant cancer on society, masquerading as its immune system.
Isn't that a bit extreme? How do you propose society handle the functions currently handled by government if government is bad? I feel any reasonable proposition here is bound to end up being a form of government, that's why I find your point here so bizarre.
Of course, I'm not sure I truly understand what you mean, so I'd appreciate it if you would explain what you mean and why in a bit more detail (that's the point of this post after all, right?) :)
The services the state provides fall into one of two categories;
How did you determine that? It seems to be an ideological conviction with some popularity in the steemit circles, but is that really a fact and if so, how was this established as fact? I find the first point especially unconvincing.
Competition drives innovation.
Governments are monopolies, so don't need to compete for market share within their borders.
They have no incentive to take risks or embrace efficiencies.
The way I see it, those are still assertions and I'm not sure there is actual evidence to prove those. I personally haven't found any evidence to convince me that this is really the case.
What would you accept as evidence? What would qualify?
Some facts I guess. Any data that would support these particular views. There is a wide variety of evidence that could potentially be convincing. A good place to start might be your reason to believe that this is the case.