Quote from: deisik on December 09, 2013, 10:27:15 PM

Quote from: Mike Christ on December 09, 2013, 10:14:12 PM

Quote from: deisik on December 09, 2013, 06:55:24 PM

Quote from: Walter Rothbard on December 09, 2013, 06:27:45 PM

The point is that you and I should not support the use of force to compel people to have just one government in an area.

I didn't get the emboldened part. Please explain

Ethics, i.e. moral philosophy, is a rather big subject; there are many concepts within it, but if you don't understand it naturally, you'd probably respond better to an argument of practicality, as ErisDiscordia pointed out.

That part about not supporting the use of force I understood pretty well (and likely would agree to it). I didn't get what had been meant by (not) compelling people to have just one government in an area. They usually already have just one government in the area, why then should we compel them to in the first place? What did I get wrong here?

I would like to allow an arbitrary number of governments in my area, but this is illegal. If anyone attempts it, they will face coercion (government force). As someone else mentioned, this should be just as legal as picking a competing ISP.

That's what I mean by compelling people to just have one government. If they try to start another, they will be forcibly put down as a "rebellion." And 99% of the population seems to think that this is good and ethical. But clearly this is the exact opposite of freedom.