scatt said:
Yeah, that is what the state is --any person or group of people that regulate without consent.
Well, wait a minute--you're not all-powerful behind the veil of ignorance. You're just discussing, with the other people, what kind of society you will create. This you (and they) do without knowing your social position, your health, your abilities or talents, or any other advantage or disadvantage you might have once society gets started. If, for you, "the state" is any entity or group of people that regulate without consent, and murder, rape, theft, etc. are kinds of regulation (I'm not sure I get that, but that seems to be what you're saying), you need to explain
how you're going to ban that--because people are going to do those things.
You cannot simply ban people from murdering someone, including you, and expect there to be no murders. It's a simple matter of fact that human beings will murder other human beings. You cannot simply ban people from not honoring contracts and expect it to stick--it's a simple matter of fact that people will try to get out of properly made contracts.
The question is what to do about it. So far, it appears your answer is "nothing."
scatt said:
The argument is might makes right and it is not to be taken seriously.
I don't know to which argument you refer. I've been talking about actual events that are likely to take place, without any attention to what is right or wrong. Rawls doesn't
avoid talk of morality, exactly, but the thought experiment he suggests need not be formulated in such terms.
scatt said:
You are describing states so i would not approve. And remember banning arms is a good way to make sure your political darwinism is enacted -- the bigger will win because equalizers are banned.
Not necessarily. Without some entity providing protections, it's possible that once you step out from behind the veil of ignorance, you could be a strapping young man with lots of physical power, but so dirt poor you couldn't afford to buy a weapon of any kind. Without some entity to enforce contracts or penalties for murder, you could be (say) hired to do a job by a tiny old little fellow, who, when the job is finished, shoots you to death rather than pay you. He reaps the benefit of your labor, and you not only don't get paid, you get killed.
These sorts of things happen as a matter of fact. The question, I repeat, is what we do about them.