Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
In a broad sense, I support any institution that means to do anything as long as its revenues do not come through coercion. Within that environment, I would not personally support lots of different institutions with my efforts, but I think they should be allowed to gather the support of others.
I should add that I think people should be allowed to influence others with aggressive measures. What I'm getting at is that what I initially said could be construed as saying it should be okay for a child molestation ring to exist and even though I wouldn't support it, I think others should be allowed to support it. While I think that is true, I also think people should be allowed to support a company that finds child molesters and shoots them in the head.

I don't adhere to the non-aggression principle like many libertarians. The principle I am against is tax regimes handing down legal mandates. I have no problem with rules established through personal choice, community choice, contracts, or insurance and arbitration companies. I just don't support only one entity having a monopoly over violence and law.

Rilla and I argued about this a lot because he thinks that if there isn't a violence monopoly then one will just arise. I don't necessarily agree, but that is a reasonable argument to make. Regardless, if he's right, it still wouldn't negate the principle a violence monopoly should be restrained in certain ways. Of course, I think that if a monopoly is capable of restraining itself, it necessarily means a market would more easily execute as much and more restraint.