San Fransisco bans Plastic bags from Grocery stores

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]

Why not? You're suggesting that the possibility of involuntary transactions makes a voluntary society impossible? This is the "zomg there will still be murderers in AC land, it's doomed to failure" argument.

Of course there are things that effect other people. Most of them aren't enough of a problem for anyone to do anything about it.

The kid down the street sometimes drives by my house with his radio blaring. You're saying that because of this I must logically accept a state? The state hasn't put a stop to it (just as it hasn't stopped pollution), so I'm not really sure how you jump from "problem" to "necessity of a state".


[/ QUOTE ]

And I'm not sure where I said anything about the necessity of a state. I'm saying that using the philosophical underpinning of a purely voluntary transactions is specious. And, as I said, there ARE people who believe that cars are a serious enough problem to do something. They go and blow up Hummers and get called ecoterrorists.

Now, since they are being affected by the "involuntary transactions" that others are making, what recourse do they have? Does not the fact that no courts exist which would serve their desires and preferences mean anything? Is this not the definition of the tyrnanny of the majority?

I read that living in NY city and just breathing the air is as bad for you as smoking X cigarrets a day (I'd have to look up the specific number and study, but it was >1). Do people living in NY city have the right to sue? Are their courts that will hear their case? Or is this also tyranny of the majority?

My point is not that we need a state or that we need anything, my point is that "tyranny of the majority" is a fact of life that is overcomable only by the use of FORCE by a minority willing and powerful enough to do so. This force may be physical violence, it may be emotional pleading, it may be something else, but it is force and power nonetheless.