From: "Vincent Penquerc'h" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Disney doesn't have the power to tell me what I may eat or smoke, > > except in their parks and on their property. > > [snip] > > Now, imagine a Disney owning the whole of the land of the USA, > and having armed forces the size of the USA. > At least, the govt has a structure that makes it more likely to > be less effective at oppression. There is still a judiciary, > who, when it's not bought out, can act as a kind of counter > power. Yes, it's not much at all, and mostly crooked, but I > still prefer that than Disney with the aforementionned assets. > > Damn, and I find myself arguing for the state.... > *washes mouth*
When I say "state", I am not saying "Bush", or any other specific person. I am saying "an institution having the monopolies I mentioned earlier". Any such institution is a state - whether called "the government of the US" or "Disney". Any such institution has all the flaws I mentioned - like the impossibility of being fair. Your "at least, the govt" argument is wrong, because such a Disney IS the govt. (I don't consider the "Disney owning the whole USA" part, because the US gov't doesn't do that. Disney owning a galaxy wouldn't be inherently wrong. Disney using force to control a small town which it doesn't own is.) Mark
