A group of individuals create a company, out of their own pockets they hire laborers. Then one day, another company of men get founded. The two decide one day to merge, yet there’s something stopping them. This fellow has his own company of men armed to the teeth, demands them to keep competing or else they’ll be removed/arrested from their organizations.
What’s wrong with this picture, anyone? Right, a fellow going around thinking he should be allowed to just tell others what to do, even claiming it’s for the greater good, he’s still using violence against a non-violent activity. This is also reminiscent of another activity, what happens when a government decides to stop a merger (after all, if you break a government law you get threatened with force if you don’t comply).
But, assuming you still don’t see the problem, let’s put you in the picture. Are you willing to walk up to someone and commit violence against them because you believe they’re either charging you for someone you think you have a right to or overcharging? That’s exactly what you’re doing here.
Every single regulation a government carries out is backed by a threat of force. That is, at the very least any attempt to resist can and will result in harm to the person resisting which can lead to death, and even if you do not resist you are still caged like an animal wherein any attempt to escape is punishable by death. That’s if you’re lucky (rehab is worse, it is a brainwashing scam), and that’s because it is all that government is capable of doing to you – violence.
So again, are you willing to stand on the front line with a weapon pointed at someone because they don’t follow your law despite being peaceful? Are you willing to let the law come knock on your front door because either you in your great wisdom thought a merge between a company you own and another company was a good thing or because you can sell or make an item the majority claim they have the right to for free? If you’re going to say no to either of these, then why do you think anyone else should?
Fact: it’s a double standard, and there certainly is nothing ethical or moral about it in history unless you’re the kind of person that supports a variety of barbarian standards. Ergo, it is uncivilized, yet here we are in the 21st century and people support it still? The fuck kind of civilization is that, exactly? What is civilized is caring for and about others, but there’s nothing civilized about committing violence – especially to either force others into doing something you wouldn’t yourself do or to stamp in others your relative ideas of what may or may not be a right or is right and wrong.
That is why, even if one admits government may be a necessary evil, why most agencies still shouldn’t exist whether it’s the FCC, DOE, DHS, IRS, FBI/NSA/CIA, or almost every other member of the “alphabetical acronym government agencies” group not already mentioned. One way or another, it is an additional form of victimless crime based on entirely-arbitrary ideals and just adds fuel to an already-violent monopoly of fire.