The One Minute Response

[prosperity]

I'm sure you've heard of arguments FOR Government intervention...

...the one that I run into most goes something like this:

Them: "The laws that are on the books must be on the books for some reason"

Me: "That doesn't mean it is a good reason"

Them: "Well, if there wasn't a good reason, then there wouldn't be a law prohibiting (or enforcing) blah blah blah"

So...I was thinking about what a good, yet quick, response for something like this could be. It's not like the majority of folks that I somehow end up in conversations with think profoundly about philosophy...

...and so, I thought about responding with something along the lines of "Government's job is to prevent the initiation of force and protect individual rights, not act as a special type of private enterprise or business with exclusive rights to initiatory force".

I'm not sure if this is way over most people's heads though...

...any thoughts or suggestions as to how you handle the "might makes right" arguments concerning intervention into the economy?

[Zip]

"Are you telling me that it's impossible for the government to be wrong? That its never ever violated a persons rights, and that it and the people in it would never use government power to rip you off or swindle you out of your own money?"

[Tenure]

Prosperity: Your argument fails against anarcho-libertarians. Seriously, they think that whatever is the right law will be somehow decided by competition between competing tribes.

[Shinokamen]

How about something along the line of "What was the reason for concentration camps for Japanese during WWII? Does genetics predispose an individual to a given loyalty?"

I have run into this problem often myself, though.

[FrolicsomeQuipster]

People who love sausage and respect the law should never watch either one being made.

Or in the case of a program.

Nothing is impossible for the man who does not have to do it himself.

[ctrl y]

Them: "Well, if there wasn't a good reason, then there wouldn't be a law prohibiting (or enforcing) blah blah blah"

Just ask for proof of the above.

...and so, I thought about responding with something along the lines of "Government's job is to prevent the initiation of force and protect individual rights, not act as a special type of private enterprise or business with exclusive rights to initiatory force".

If you are even having this argument, your opponent doesn't agree with the minimalist, non-intervention stance on government. You have to start from a point of agreement.

...any thoughts or suggestions as to how you handle the "might makes right" arguments concerning intervention into the economy?

You're an objectivist. I would think you'd just use the Standard Objectivist Argument for the right to property.

Edited December 20, 2008 by ctrl y