• irmoz@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Requiring a state to protect private property isn't "the state running things". Even right-libertarians concede the necessity of state to uphold private property laws. "The state running shit" would be like… a planned economy.

    Don't equivocate the two, yeah?

    • AlDente@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Look friend, it should be clear that "things", in the context of this conversation so far, is the market. Once again, just like expanding the use of "state" to include anything resembling central authority, you try twisting my words as some sort of gotcha. I've been clear and consistent in my beliefs regarding the market and I'm open to hearing alternative views.

      • irmoz@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It's fucking bonkers that you think the definition of "things" is what's at issue here.

        I'm not disputing that lmao. But upholding private property law is not running the market. That would be, like i said, a planned economy.