| | Malarki wrote:
>Daniel I never said anything about any individual being excluded from the law. People would pay insurance companies to ensure that their property is compensated should they be burgled.
Uh? This happens right now. I have just such a policy, as do millions of others. It's called a household insurance policy. So what is your point? That the police should get into the insurance industry? Isn't that a job for private enterprise rather than a government monopoly, which justice legitimately is? Further, how is it germane to national defence? What, the government's somehow going to compensate me if we get invaded?
>Incidently regarding an army funded by taxation, how could you ensure you had an optimum and efficent army sufficent to deter the enemy and not waste money? How would you know whether your army is underfunded?
The same way an Objectivist military system would: through the judgement and recommendations of army bureaucrats. After all, under Objectivism military defence is to be run by government monopoly: so how else do you think it could operate other than by a bureacracy of some description? Certainly this will be wasteful and limiting in terms of responsiveness to individual choice. But sadly, that is the cost of giving the government monopoly over this issue. After all, you aren't going to argue that a government monopoly can give the same consumer choice outcomes and efficiencies as a free market? Are you?
- Daniel
|
|
