Me: what are the fallacies in the following: The police enforces property rights. Without property rights enforcement economic activity would be impossible. Everything that people produce would be pilfered, and the population would be plunged into poverty. This happened in Russia in 1990s, when the police was incompetent and the place was overrun by gangs. This continues to happen in the American inner city, where law enforcement does not know what it is doing and the conditions are so violent that no business would set up shop there. Police is required for enforcement of property rights, and without the police everyone would be very poor.
Google Bard: The argument that the police enforce property rights and that without property rights enforcement economic activity would be impossible is based on a number of fallacies.
First, the argument commits the fallacy of association. The author argues that because the police enforce property rights, and because economic activity is possible in places where the police are present, then the police are necessary for economic activity. However, this does not follow. There are many other factors that contribute to economic activity, such as the availability of natural resources, the level of education, and the quality of infrastructure.
Second, the argument commits the fallacy of composition. The author argues that because individuals need property rights in order to produce and trade, then society as a whole needs property rights in order to produce and trade. However, this does not follow. Individuals can produce and trade without property rights, as long as they can trust each other to respect each other's property. In fact, many societies have existed without formal property rights, and they have been able to produce and trade quite effectively.
Third, the argument commits the fallacy of slippery slope. The author argues that if we do not have property rights, then everything that people produce will be pilfered, and the population will be plunged into poverty. However, this is not a logical consequence of not having property rights. There are many ways to protect property without having a formal system of property rights. For example, people can use informal agreements, social norms, or even violence to protect their property.
Fourth, the author uses anecdotal evidence to support their argument. The author points to the example of Russia in the 1990s and the American inner city as evidence that without property rights, economic activity will be impossible. However, these are just two examples, and they do not prove the general point. There are many other examples of societies that have been able to produce and trade effectively without formal property rights.
In conclusion, the argument that the police enforce property rights and that without property rights enforcement economic activity would be impossible is based on a number of fallacies. The argument is not convincing, and it does not provide a sound basis for the conclusion that the police are necessary for economic activity.