'The protection of private property by government is authoritarian.'
[ support:25% : certainty:16 ] · [8 replies] · [0 comment]
arguments · summary
style: sort by: reverse:
supporting arguments 62% · [make argument]
by metric on 2006-07-08 22:38:39
As much as I support John Lock's "Life, Liberty, and Property" stance on government responsibility, I think I'm deviating on this issue. Wherever a government applies force to solve an issue, it is authoritarian. In this case, governments have used force to establish the notion of private property. In a way this is similar to intellectual property. If it wasn't for the government, it wouldn't exist... therefore authoritarian. Now hold on... I support enforcement of private property. Yes, I admit, I support a government that is a bit authoritative. There would be no need for government otherwise. Now the question is how authoritative should a government be?
opposing arguments 37% · [make argument]
60% · JWOS
by jesuit on 2006-07-10 05:28:06
by your logic, government funded police force should be eliminated, since they always use force.
by anonymous on 2007-03-24 04:46:20
The ultimate example of an authoritarian government is the Communist system where there is no protection of private property. So therefore the more you protect property the less authoritarian the government becomes because it has less cointrol over property and therefore life.

Powered by Debatepoint.