Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: illinoissmith
I think that in a free society (free in the sense that one can say what one likes and own arms and free to keep the car he has earned (etc.), but not free in the sense that he can steal a car and go unpunished)

As I said, "freedom" never includes the right to initiate force against someone else. You don't need to specifically mention such an exclusion, except perhaps in grammar school, when teaching the kiddies about freedom.

If my neighbors are armed, and most of them... believe that my parents and husband [I] and should to be sacrificed to Zeus... arms alone don't do the trick.

True--but that's equally true today. If your neighbors are all satanists, they might decide to use you for a black mass, and you and your pistol might not be enough to stop them. But worse, if the government decides that your wacky little religion displeases them, your pistol won't stop them from surrounding your place with tanks, pumping if full of CS gas, and then setting it on fire. So I accept what you say here, but I dispute whether it would be any worse than today.

Your point is good from another angle, too. It's worth pointing out that you do have the right to hire a security guard. If you're allowed to shoot in self defense, then you're also allowed to hire someone to do that for you. You and your neighbors can, if you all agree, hire some security guards and divvy up the cost. For example, if everyone on your cul de sac agrees, you can stick a gate on the end of the road, with a guard booth, and have other guards running foot patrols.

Aha! You might reply. Isn't that what the police do today? The answer is no; the police force me to pay for them whether I wish to or not. In the above scenario, your neighborhood is protected, but everyone is participating voluntarily. But even more importantly, there's an issue of jurisdiction: these guards can protect your homes, even using deadly force. But they have no authority to roam outside your neighborhood and bust into people's homes. In other words, these guards are truly your servants, not your masters.

If you fast forward that scenario a few years, you'll realize I think that before long there would be a handful of fairly big security firms. Pinkertons might be big in the west; Securitas in the northeast; Seguridad in the southesast, etc. So doesn't that mean that we have a de-facto government? Or a handful of warlords--namely, the CEOs of those companies?

The answer is no. Many people won't hire any security firm; they'll arm themselves heavily, and put man-traps near their basement windows. If you think the Pinkertons are too uppity, you are free to stop paying them. You could hire Securitas instead, or you could start your own security company and compete with them. And best of all, the security company has no power whatsoever to "make laws". All they can do is provide guard services.

By contrast, today's police are effectively rulers. They can break into your house on filmsy excuses--such as anonymous tips, or "glimpsing illegal activity through your window", or any other made-up "probable cause". They routinely harrass motorists, and if all else fails they will claim you were "weaving around the road." If they shoot you, there's a general presumption that they were within their rights to do so, sometimes they are. Sometimes they aren't, and SOME of those times they're punished for it. But they get away with some pretty broad excuses: the wallet in his hand looked like a gun; he reached suddenly for his pocket; it was dark; etc. And worst of all, police face no competition. The Pinkertons will try to please you, so you don't switch to Securitas.

Anyway, the bottom line is that I'm not describing a Hobbesian "all against all" sort of jungle. Many "government" jobs will be taken over by insurance companies, security companies, etc. Everything government does can be done better on the free market.

It is because I am not paranoid about forces or government all being bad.

In other words, it's OK with you that they have the authority to take your property, tax your money, and arrest or shoot you, because you feel trustful that they won't use those powers in ways that you object to (very much). It's touching that you have this level of trust. If I don't share it, am I allowed to opt out? If I can opt out, then I wish you the best of luck with this "government" thing of yours. If I can't, then you are approving the use of force against me.

192 posted on 02/10/2006 11:41:21 AM PST by Shalom Israel (Pray for the peace of Jerusalem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies ]


To: Shalom Israel
"As I said, "freedom" never includes the right to initiate force against someone else. You don't need to specifically mention such an exclusion, except perhaps in grammar school, when teaching the kiddies about freedom."

Your words mean other than you wish them to mean. "Human Liberty" in the political sphere is a term loaded with both ideas about lack of constraints (freedom) and ideas about moral good.

You think it is good for people to have the freedom to kill themselves and bake bread and trade hogs and so on. You think it is bad for people to have the freedom to kill other people and break into their homes. I agree. However, these are moral judgments. You can't just swipe them under how you use the term 'freedom' and be done with it. It is wrong when these are swept under the rug in grammar school, it is worse when adults don't realize there has been a sweeping under the rug.

"True--but that's equally true today."

My whole point was that it is relevant today - thus the comment about "twin gods of pain elimination and stopping evolution".

I basically agree with the rest, about police and security companies. They do lots of bad. The only way that will stop, is for people to know about it, and to pressure government to change for the better, or wait for government to collapse.

"In other words, it's OK with you that they have the authority to take your property, tax your money, and arrest or shoot you, because you feel trustful that they won't use those powers in ways that you object to (very much). It's touching that you have this level of trust. If I don't share it, am I allowed to opt out? If I can opt out, then I wish you the best of luck with this "government" thing of yours. If I can't, then you are approving the use of force against me."

NO NO NO that is not what I mean, is this a farce? It is because I recognize that the word 'government' has a meaning other than that I wish it to have for the moment! You have to qualify the word to get it to mean 'governing of humans over humans' (oppression of some humans by others)! You have to qualify it further to mean 'governing of humans over humans through through some means other than the punishing of rights infringers' (unjustifiable oppression).

I think we agree more than we would know for the sake of term usage.

I think a lot of the places where I had guessed in you something very nefarious it was over term usage issues and nothing worse. I'm sorry about the weird fight club post, if it was off mark - for confusion over terms, I had judged you for a death-wish anarchist, I know many such folks IRL, they are all obsessed with Fight Club, and I really have a strong problem with their beliefs. I have a HUGE problem with their beliefs. If you are not of this sort, and now I'm really thinking you are not, I'm sorry for even the suggestion that you might be. I was led to it by your use of terms.

I'm just going to stop here because I agree with your sentiments in the above quote paragraph, and will in fact bold it for emphasis. It is not good to trust a government that can break into your home and steal your children, etc.. It is not good to have a government which can break into your home and steal your children, etc. We mainly seem to be using terms totally differently from each other. It doesn't seem to be useful.
199 posted on 02/12/2006 11:47:40 PM PST by illinoissmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson