In theory, but not practice. Hobbes particularly, makes the point that without government, property rights are largely unenforcible. The strong will out.
> In theory, but not practice. Hobbes particularly, makes the point that without government, property rights are largely unenforcible. The strong will out.
Umm, the strong will out even with govt. In fact, govt will enforce the will of the strong.
Consider how eminent domain works in the US. One of the seminal cases in the US involved GM wanting to build a plant where a bunch of poor people lived. The local govt took the land under eminent domain and basically gave it to GM. (It's the "poletown" case if you're looking for cites.)
Yes, you get to vote, but as they say, democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting over what to have for dinner.
At least that sheep has a vote. I dislike eminent domain abuse as much as anyone but there is a big difference between what property right abuse looks like now and what it would look like without a discernible and relatively incorrupt government.
> there is a big difference between what property right abuse looks like now and what it would look like without a discernible and relatively incorrupt government.
Those aren't the only possibilities. (And relatively incorrupt is optimistic. It isn't consistently corrupt.)
Consider the sudan (no functioning govt) with zimbabwe (malevolent govt). It's not obvious that the sudan is worse.
Also, remember that the effective genocides have had govt backing.
Umm, the strong will out even with govt. In fact, govt will enforce the will of the strong.
Consider how eminent domain works in the US. One of the seminal cases in the US involved GM wanting to build a plant where a bunch of poor people lived. The local govt took the land under eminent domain and basically gave it to GM. (It's the "poletown" case if you're looking for cites.)
Yes, you get to vote, but as they say, democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting over what to have for dinner.