I see he's trying to avoid false dichotomies, which is always a good thing to do. Don't know if he's quite there yet, though.
Man is a social creature, it's true. Societies do require shared resources. It doesn't have to be some theoretical tribal limit: Any society larger than one requires shared resources. Anyone unwilling to do his part in a society becomes a parasite and deserves to be driven out of it. No disagreement there.
But what if he never agreed to join this "society" in the first place? Then the question is, does that "sharing" have to take the form of taxes, extracted at the barrel of a gun? Because that's not sharing, that's robbery.
I'm not an "anarcho-libertarian." I've really no idea what that is; it sounds like "Chevy-Ford" to me. I can get along with libertarians, but I'm - to the extent any label fits - an anarchist. But here's a dirty little secret. I've never met an anarchist, any more than any libertarian, who really had a workable plan for the world. And if I met that person I'd probably reject him, because I'm really sick and tired of people who have plans for the world. Aren't you?
The only person I can justly rule is myself. I can be *led,* but it will be by leaders of my choosing. The only society I'm busy reforming is the one inside my own head. The only society I'm interested in pleasing is the small group that I voluntarily joined, and with whom I do share my resources - willingly. How do you scale that up to "human society?" Hell, I don't know. Probably you can't. "Society" is none of my business. I wish to hell it would stop making me *its* business.
It's a nice soundbite. But it fails the internal consistency test again.
Anyone unwilling to do his part in a society becomes a parasite and deserves to be driven out of it. No disagreement there.
But what if he never agreed to join this "society" in the first place? Then the question is, does that "sharing" have to take the form of taxes, extracted at the barrel of a gun? Because that's not sharing, that's robbery.
He understands initially that societies must and will use force to force people into compliance - or else.
But then he bemoans that exact "barrel of a gun" mentality.
And he's done so, in both cases, with absolutes, with no wavering. Yes, you have to be able to use force, no, you can never use force.
How do you scale that up to "human society?" Hell, I don't know. Probably you can't.
Everyone is 100% free if they want to be. People are too willing to forget that "free" includes "free to crouch naked against the cold, eating your dinner while it's still wriggling". I'm no different from the anarcho-libertarians in resenting force used against me to support things I think should not be part of civilized society. The difference lies in the fact that I've thought things through enough to realize everyone likes laws that free them and dislikes laws that restrain them, and that all laws everywhere are an expression of force. Any body of law is ultimately no more than a society's consensus on when it is acceptable, even praiseworthy for one citizen (like for example a cop) to point a gun at another citizen and demand, "Do what I say or I'll shoot you."
The more you argue for anarcho-libertarianism, the more you ultimately argue that "cos I felt like it" as a reason behind pointing the gun at you should not be society's problem, but solely your own.
The debate isn't really about govt use of force so much as how much force is justified-where do you draw the line? For those at the totalitarian end any amount of force is justified. Is that where you want to be? If not then lay out your criteria for the proper place to draw the line.
My thinking on this is to progress from things that almost everyone agrees is necessary for govt to do down to the point that roughly a third of the people are against doing. Then govt should stop using force to impose its will. Below that point the social cost gets too high. Our current system is 50%+1 gets to control everything. We can see how well thats working. I also have no illusions that anybody is going to take me seriously.
By that rationale, the 2/3 majority vote would be the rule of law. It would require a 2:1 vote ratio of yes to no in order to make anything happen. On its surface I agree with that, but anecdotally it is a little troubling. For example, the Heller ruling was decided 5-4. We would have been one vote short of success. I do think that a 2/3 majority vote would make things more difficult to pass, which wouldn't be a bad thing. Also, it would have the effect of lowering the threshold of oppression. However, the 2/3 majority policy WOULD have had an effect on the outcome of recent cases that went our way. We have to examine the arguments against us and double check to make sure we aren't using the same ones. Otherwise we are guilty of only crying foul when it doesn't go OUR way, which is a sin we regularly see manifested in our political enemies on this issue.
Unix-Jedi, he is not being inconsistent. He is saying that you should have a choice in the matter. If you don't wish to be a part of society, then you're not, there's no need to be thrown out. Anyone who wishes to be part of that society doesn't need, by definition, to be coerced through threat of force into paying their share, as they are willing participants.
The fact that he also notes that there's not necessarily a way to implement this writ large, means that he's also very pragmatic about his philosophy, which techically makes him a rational anarchist, doesn't it?
He is saying that you should have a choice in the matter.
To an extent, and then he's advocating force to exclude those who do not want to participate. But wait, What if they do, and cheat the system? Or have their own set of judgements or morals that cause them to conflict.... Yeah. It's a great theory - in theory. There's a reason communes don't work in the real world. If you could theoretically get EVERYBODY to agree on EVERYTHING then it would work.
But then, you don't need to deal with human nature, cause you're no longer dealing with it.
If you don't wish to be a part of society, then you're not, there's no need to be thrown out.
Notice you've re-written what he said. That's not what he said. He specifically spoke of forceful expulsion. Because there has to be a method for that, or some method of identifying who's in the "society". Let me know when you've gotten that worked out. (I have some minor hope for technology providing for this in the future - but right now it's problematic.)
Anyone who wishes to be part of that society doesn't need, by definition, to be coerced through threat of force into paying their share, as they are willing participants.
Until you get to a disagreement as to what's the fair share, and what's to be paid for.
Or, until you get more than 1 person involved.
That's totally ignoring the presumption that there's a overhanging threat of force in almost any transaction. If I were to rob you, (using force) that would be opposed by other force, either yourself, bystanders, police. Take away the threat of force, and all of these "free market principals" start to fall apart. Sad but true.
But it's completely inconsistent to allow for the use of force to expel people (through some method that's going to suspiciously look like a legal system and framework) but then denounce it for collection of the required inputs.
What exactly is the difference between your quoter's assertion that man's social nature justifies confiscating money on whatever he thinks are "required shared resources" and, say, Obama's assertion that man's social nature justifies confiscating money on whatever he thinks are "required shared resources"?
Okay, I finally had time to read that article by Rothbard. He makes some major mistakes, but I'm not going to spend time on them now. Notably absent from that article was the answer to the questions I asked yesterday:
"Perhaps you could explain why the Constitution is wrong about this. [War being carried out only under Federal authority.] How, exactly, would it work to have the military not protect you, while protecting the rest of us who do want that protection and are willing to pay for it? Would a foreign military or guerilla force be free to bomb your house, but not your neighbor's house?"
In fact, as Ken observed:
"In a private competitive-security world, not many would have the resources either to call in or to mount airstrikes. You need to be able to exploit scale for that sort of thing."
It seems that a "private competitive-security world" would not have the firepower to defend itself from aggressive neighbors who have formed themselves into states with armies, complete with tanks, aircraft, etc. Nor would it seem that fractured "private competitive-security" companies have the resources to carry out the kind of intelligence gathering necessary to protect their clients from terrorists.
Well, if there are collectivist scale-exploiters on t'other side of the Misty Mountains, then yes, that's a problem. In fact, that's the one thing that gives me any sort of pause on the road to market anarchy. You might be able to assemble a polity that renounces the state, but there's no guarantee that the fellas over the hill will do the same -- Cain being Abel's next door neighbor and all that.
On the other hand, that's also the favorite argument of the state, "We'll protect you from those guys what want to burn down your farm and subject you to corvee labor. All we ask is that you, um, agree to um...perform corvee labor. (It will be less than those other guys want, honest, plus we talk and dress like you, and those other guys dress funny and just say bar bar bar.)"
I'm out of hands, and no closer to resolving the question than I was. Alas, Babylon.
Unix-Jedi, I apologize for being unclear. You did misunderstand something I said.
My words were: But what if he never agreed to join this "society" in the first place? Then the question is, does that "sharing" have to take the form of taxes, extracted at the barrel of a gun? Because that's not sharing, that's robbery.
I was not advocating the taxes or the gun. I was suggesting that a person who wishes not to be a part of some group of people, but who is forced at implicit or explicit gunpoint to contribute to that group as if he were its happiest volunteer, is being robbed.
Your other statement: "He is saying that you should have a choice in the matter. "
Is perfectly correct. You should have a choice in the matter. In practice, you do have a choice - it's just not a very good one. Unfortunately one of the current choices involves jail or living underground. I chose the latter, but it sure wouldn't be for everybody. And it still might end in jail or worse.
As to theories about how to remove all this unpleasantness from society - well, I was clear on that. I have no dreaming clue how to do it.
What exactly is the difference between your quoter's assertion that man's social nature justifies confiscating money on whatever he thinks are "required shared resources" and, say, Obama's assertion that man's social nature justifies confiscating money on whatever he thinks are "required shared resources"?
I can answer this one.
The difference is that no one has figured out an effective way to protect only those who choose to pay from a hostile army or intelligence agency, or for that matter a flooding Mississippi River, a catastrophic failure of a home propane tank, or a serial killer. I feel certain the cops would be delighted if they had the option to ignore those who didn't think they were worth what they were paid.
Insurance companies, banks and other shared risk organizations figured out long, long ago how to extend benefits of cooperation only to those willing to pay for it Obama et al are just using the fact that everyone who has lesser benefits would of course love to have better benefits (they're just unwilling and/or unable to pay for them) to give the federal government more power to make everyone's decisions for them.
In short, it depends on how you define "required". One side is using it to mean "the risk or benefit physically cannot be confined to those doing the work and paying the money". The other side is using it to mean "the ideology currently in power considers it a moral obligation".
"The difference is that no one has figured out an effective way to protect only those who choose to pay from a hostile army or intelligence agency, or for that matter a flooding Mississippi River, a catastrophic failure of a home propane tank, or a serial killer. I feel certain the cops would be delighted if they had the option to ignore those who didn't think they were worth what they were paid."
Yep. That's why I've been focusing on the military question. (Not to mention its clear Constitution vs. Paul's philosophy aspect that moke brought up.) Interestingly, Paul's Pals seem to be avoiding that question. I wonder why? O:-)
1)Exist within my allotted spacetime, attempting mightily to do no harm.
2)If harm occurs, attempt mightily to repair/atone for that harm.
3)Attempt to avoid being harmed.
4)Be willing to fight and die for the above three points.
The really great thing about my plan is that it leaves all the rest of you folks free to do whatever it is that you want to do. Build massive states, tax, create laws, etc. If I don't like 'em I'll ignore 'em. If you come after me, I'll fight you. If I die in that battle, oh well. Gotta die sometime. Best to live while you can in the manner you prefer.
I long ago gave up on saving the world. That's just plain old hubris. I concentrate now on getting peaceful sleep at night.
I was suggesting that a person who wishes not to be a part of some group of people
Might I suggest that such a person start by removing himself: physically, psychically and socially from that group of people. That means abandoning any claim to (at a minimum) real property made possible by that group of people. If the assertion is that you can't remove yourself under those terms, then I would agree that you are subject to tyranny. If on the other hand, the demand is to have your cake and eat it too (i.e. retain all your goods and title thereto) - well, that doesn't work for five year olds; there is no reason that an intelligent, capable adult should expect it to.
"That means abandoning any claim to (at a minimum) real property made possible by that group of people."
Just out of curiosity, how would you define "made possible by" in this instance? And, having answered that, do you postulate that the group of people in question is the same group of people that a person might be wishing to withdraw from?
I'm interested in that too. I have seen it argued elsewhere that, in effect, only practitioners of complete autarky can practice anarchy. I'm not sure that that is what juris_imprudent is contending here. Call it the angle of my forehead if you must, but I would be obliged to get a clarification.
You just described Heinlein's "Rational Anarchist" in the person of Professor Bernardo de la Paz from The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.
Who then went on to head a revolt against the Lunar Authority and Earth.
And why did he do it? Because he chose to do it. This isn't a logical transform, it's the messy facts of life. Every moment presents choices and every thinking human makes them. That's true of every single human on the planet. The point is to figure out where you want those choices to lead and try your best to keep to that pattern. I make no claims to perfection. I only claim to try.
BTW, what exactly did Prof's rebellion gain him and Luna, in the end? ;)
Joel: I was suggesting that a person who wishes not to be a part of some group of people, but who is forced at implicit or explicit gunpoint to contribute to that group as if he were its happiest volunteer, is being robbed.
No, I didn't misunderstand you.
http://xkcd.com/669/
You said: deserves to be driven out of it.
Now, yes, I understand your point about what if someone wants nothing to do with anybody - and that's a valid point. Today there's not a lot of places - still, some, that you can go.
But that means you don't deal with the society at all. Most people who talk about things like that forget the total system, and want to just talk about the upsides, or an imaginary future that isn't populated by real people.
And when people can "opt out" of paying for it, many *will*. That's what you're missing.
So how about it moke, and other Paul supporters? Care to answer these questions?
"Perhaps you could explain why the Constitution is wrong about this. [War being carried out only under Federal authority.] How, exactly, would it work to have the military not protect you, while protecting the rest of us who do want that protection and are willing to pay for it? Would a foreign military or guerilla force be free to bomb your house, but not your neighbor's house?"
"So how about it moke, and other Paul supporters? Care to answer these questions?"
Apparently, the answer is "No."
So for the record, it seems that it is not physically possible for a defending military force (as in a military force protecting an area, even if the appropriate actions necessary to provide that protection are elsewhere) to pick and choose which houses/people to defend or fight on behalf of.
Furthermore, the lessons of history show that the larger the base of resources supporting a military are, the more effective that military is at doing its job. For example, almost no local militia (as in attached to a city, township, county or parish) has the resources to support advanced weapons of war such as aircraft, ships, missiles and probably even modern battle tanks. Therefore, in order to be effective, larger areas of protection and resources are necessary to field an effective military. So at minimum, state level military units are a necessity for an effective fighting force.
Furthermore, a national level fighting force can be even more effective than a state force.
Of course, a national level force could also be very effective against the country's own population unless there are safeguards in place to prevent such abuses. That's why the federal military is subject to the Rule of Law, with the National Guard at the state level and the 2nd Amendment for the personal level, for those times when the Rule of Law breaks down.
Furthermore, if one state were to declare war, it would tend to drag other states into that war against their will, whether through the enemy of the declaring state attacking surrounding states, or the necessity of those states getting involved to maintain national integrity into which the Constitution binds us. That's why it seems necessary for the Constitutional limitation on declaring war only at the national level.
Bottom line, denying the inherent problems of deciding what to defend and what not to defend on a house by house, apartment by apartment, or even person by person basis strikes me as just as reasonable as a clock barking and smearing itself with poo. And that is why I cannot support Ron Paul despite agreeing with him on the other 90% of the Constitution.
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2010/03/quote-of-day-r0n-p4ul-edition_04.html (29 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
I see he's trying to avoid false dichotomies, which is always a good thing to do. Don't know if he's quite there yet, though.
Man is a social creature, it's true. Societies do require shared resources. It doesn't have to be some theoretical tribal limit: Any society larger than one requires shared resources. Anyone unwilling to do his part in a society becomes a parasite and deserves to be driven out of it. No disagreement there.
But what if he never agreed to join this "society" in the first place? Then the question is, does that "sharing" have to take the form of taxes, extracted at the barrel of a gun? Because that's not sharing, that's robbery.
I'm not an "anarcho-libertarian." I've really no idea what that is; it sounds like "Chevy-Ford" to me. I can get along with libertarians, but I'm - to the extent any label fits - an anarchist. But here's a dirty little secret. I've never met an anarchist, any more than any libertarian, who really had a workable plan for the world. And if I met that person I'd probably reject him, because I'm really sick and tired of people who have plans for the world. Aren't you?
The only person I can justly rule is myself. I can be *led,* but it will be by leaders of my choosing. The only society I'm busy reforming is the one inside my own head. The only society I'm interested in pleasing is the small group that I voluntarily joined, and with whom I do share my resources - willingly. How do you scale that up to "human society?" Hell, I don't know. Probably you can't. "Society" is none of my business. I wish to hell it would stop making me *its* business.
"Society" is none of my business. I wish to hell it would stop making me *its* business.
Joel wins the internets.
Ken:
It's a nice soundbite. But it fails the internal consistency test again.
Anyone unwilling to do his part in a society becomes a parasite and deserves to be driven out of it. No disagreement there.
But what if he never agreed to join this "society" in the first place? Then the question is, does that "sharing" have to take the form of taxes, extracted at the barrel of a gun? Because that's not sharing, that's robbery.
He understands initially that societies must and will use force to force people into compliance - or else.
But then he bemoans that exact "barrel of a gun" mentality.
And he's done so, in both cases, with absolutes, with no wavering. Yes, you have to be able to use force, no, you can never use force.
How do you scale that up to "human society?" Hell, I don't know. Probably you can't.
Now Joel's onto something.
Everyone is 100% free if they want to be. People are too willing to forget that "free" includes "free to crouch naked against the cold, eating your dinner while it's still wriggling". I'm no different from the anarcho-libertarians in resenting force used against me to support things I think should not be part of civilized society. The difference lies in the fact that I've thought things through enough to realize everyone likes laws that free them and dislikes laws that restrain them, and that all laws everywhere are an expression of force. Any body of law is ultimately no more than a society's consensus on when it is acceptable, even praiseworthy for one citizen (like for example a cop) to point a gun at another citizen and demand, "Do what I say or I'll shoot you."
The more you argue for anarcho-libertarianism, the more you ultimately argue that "cos I felt like it" as a reason behind pointing the gun at you should not be society's problem, but solely your own.
The debate isn't really about govt use of force so much as how much force is justified-where do you draw the line? For those at the totalitarian end any amount of force is justified. Is that where you want to be? If not then lay out your criteria for the proper place to draw the line.
My thinking on this is to progress from things that almost everyone agrees is necessary for govt to do down to the point that roughly a third of the people are against doing. Then govt should stop using force to impose its will. Below that point the social cost gets too high. Our current system is 50%+1 gets to control everything. We can see how well thats working. I also have no illusions that anybody is going to take me seriously.
By that rationale, the 2/3 majority vote would be the rule of law. It would require a 2:1 vote ratio of yes to no in order to make anything happen. On its surface I agree with that, but anecdotally it is a little troubling. For example, the Heller ruling was decided 5-4. We would have been one vote short of success. I do think that a 2/3 majority vote would make things more difficult to pass, which wouldn't be a bad thing. Also, it would have the effect of lowering the threshold of oppression. However, the 2/3 majority policy WOULD have had an effect on the outcome of recent cases that went our way. We have to examine the arguments against us and double check to make sure we aren't using the same ones. Otherwise we are guilty of only crying foul when it doesn't go OUR way, which is a sin we regularly see manifested in our political enemies on this issue.
Unix-Jedi, he is not being inconsistent. He is saying that you should have a choice in the matter. If you don't wish to be a part of society, then you're not, there's no need to be thrown out. Anyone who wishes to be part of that society doesn't need, by definition, to be coerced through threat of force into paying their share, as they are willing participants.
The fact that he also notes that there's not necessarily a way to implement this writ large, means that he's also very pragmatic about his philosophy, which techically makes him a rational anarchist, doesn't it?
Unix-Jedi, he is not being inconsistent.
Yes, he is, and I highlighted that.
He is saying that you should have a choice in the matter.
To an extent, and then he's advocating force to exclude those who do not want to participate. But wait, What if they do, and cheat the system? Or have their own set of judgements or morals that cause them to conflict.... Yeah. It's a great theory - in theory. There's a reason communes don't work in the real world. If you could theoretically get EVERYBODY to agree on EVERYTHING then it would work.
But then, you don't need to deal with human nature, cause you're no longer dealing with it.
If you don't wish to be a part of society, then you're not, there's no need to be thrown out.
Notice you've re-written what he said. That's not what he said. He specifically spoke of forceful expulsion. Because there has to be a method for that, or some method of identifying who's in the "society". Let me know when you've gotten that worked out. (I have some minor hope for technology providing for this in the future - but right now it's problematic.)
Anyone who wishes to be part of that society doesn't need, by definition, to be coerced through threat of force into paying their share, as they are willing participants.
Until you get to a disagreement as to what's the fair share, and what's to be paid for.
Or, until you get more than 1 person involved.
That's totally ignoring the presumption that there's a overhanging threat of force in almost any transaction. If I were to rob you, (using force) that would be opposed by other force, either yourself, bystanders, police. Take away the threat of force, and all of these "free market principals" start to fall apart. Sad but true.
But it's completely inconsistent to allow for the use of force to expel people (through some method that's going to suspiciously look like a legal system and framework) but then denounce it for collection of the required inputs.
1. Man is a social animal
2.
3. The invasion and occupation of Iraq is necessary and compatible with freedom
Number of times the word "Iraq" appears in this thread? Once, written by you.
Why don't you respond to the actual points being made?
What exactly is the difference between your quoter's assertion that man's social nature justifies confiscating money on whatever he thinks are "required shared resources" and, say, Obama's assertion that man's social nature justifies confiscating money on whatever he thinks are "required shared resources"?
Okay, I finally had time to read that article by Rothbard. He makes some major mistakes, but I'm not going to spend time on them now. Notably absent from that article was the answer to the questions I asked yesterday:
"Perhaps you could explain why the Constitution is wrong about this. [War being carried out only under Federal authority.] How, exactly, would it work to have the military not protect you, while protecting the rest of us who do want that protection and are willing to pay for it? Would a foreign military or guerilla force be free to bomb your house, but not your neighbor's house?"
In fact, as Ken observed:
"In a private competitive-security world, not many would have the resources either to call in or to mount airstrikes. You need to be able to exploit scale for that sort of thing."
It seems that a "private competitive-security world" would not have the firepower to defend itself from aggressive neighbors who have formed themselves into states with armies, complete with tanks, aircraft, etc. Nor would it seem that fractured "private competitive-security" companies have the resources to carry out the kind of intelligence gathering necessary to protect their clients from terrorists.
Well, if there are collectivist scale-exploiters on t'other side of the Misty Mountains, then yes, that's a problem. In fact, that's the one thing that gives me any sort of pause on the road to market anarchy. You might be able to assemble a polity that renounces the state, but there's no guarantee that the fellas over the hill will do the same -- Cain being Abel's next door neighbor and all that.
On the other hand, that's also the favorite argument of the state, "We'll protect you from those guys what want to burn down your farm and subject you to corvee labor. All we ask is that you, um, agree to um...perform corvee labor. (It will be less than those other guys want, honest, plus we talk and dress like you, and those other guys dress funny and just say bar bar bar.)"
I'm out of hands, and no closer to resolving the question than I was. Alas, Babylon.
Unix-Jedi, I apologize for being unclear. You did misunderstand something I said.
My words were:
But what if he never agreed to join this "society" in the first place? Then the question is, does that "sharing" have to take the form of taxes, extracted at the barrel of a gun? Because that's not sharing, that's robbery.
I was not advocating the taxes or the gun. I was suggesting that a person who wishes not to be a part of some group of people, but who is forced at implicit or explicit gunpoint to contribute to that group as if he were its happiest volunteer, is being robbed.
Your other statement:
"He is saying that you should have a choice in the matter. "
Is perfectly correct. You should have a choice in the matter. In practice, you do have a choice - it's just not a very good one. Unfortunately one of the current choices involves jail or living underground. I chose the latter, but it sure wouldn't be for everybody. And it still might end in jail or worse.
As to theories about how to remove all this unpleasantness from society - well, I was clear on that. I have no dreaming clue how to do it.
Also, I clearly have no idea how tagging works with this forum software. There are perfectly good buttons right over there.
I'll fix it when I get home. And if you axe Echo, it's a FEATURE not a BUG.
What exactly is the difference between your quoter's assertion that man's social nature justifies confiscating money on whatever he thinks are "required shared resources" and, say, Obama's assertion that man's social nature justifies confiscating money on whatever he thinks are "required shared resources"?
I can answer this one.
The difference is that no one has figured out an effective way to protect only those who choose to pay from a hostile army or intelligence agency, or for that matter a flooding Mississippi River, a catastrophic failure of a home propane tank, or a serial killer. I feel certain the cops would be delighted if they had the option to ignore those who didn't think they were worth what they were paid.
Insurance companies, banks and other shared risk organizations figured out long, long ago how to extend benefits of cooperation only to those willing to pay for it Obama et al are just using the fact that everyone who has lesser benefits would of course love to have better benefits (they're just unwilling and/or unable to pay for them) to give the federal government more power to make everyone's decisions for them.
In short, it depends on how you define "required". One side is using it to mean "the risk or benefit physically cannot be confined to those doing the work and paying the money". The other side is using it to mean "the ideology currently in power considers it a moral obligation".
"The difference is that no one has figured out an effective way to protect only those who choose to pay from a hostile army or intelligence agency, or for that matter a flooding Mississippi River, a catastrophic failure of a home propane tank, or a serial killer. I feel certain the cops would be delighted if they had the option to ignore those who didn't think they were worth what they were paid."
Yep. That's why I've been focusing on the military question. (Not to mention its clear Constitution vs. Paul's philosophy aspect that moke brought up.) Interestingly, Paul's Pals seem to be avoiding that question. I wonder why? O:-)
My "workable plan for the world":
1)Exist within my allotted spacetime, attempting mightily to do no harm.
2)If harm occurs, attempt mightily to repair/atone for that harm.
3)Attempt to avoid being harmed.
4)Be willing to fight and die for the above three points.
The really great thing about my plan is that it leaves all the rest of you folks free to do whatever it is that you want to do. Build massive states, tax, create laws, etc. If I don't like 'em I'll ignore 'em. If you come after me, I'll fight you. If I die in that battle, oh well. Gotta die sometime. Best to live while you can in the manner you prefer.
I long ago gave up on saving the world. That's just plain old hubris. I concentrate now on getting peaceful sleep at night.
You just described Heinlein's "Rational Anarchist" in the person of Professor Bernardo de la Paz from The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.
Who then went on to head a revolt against the Lunar Authority and Earth.
I was suggesting that a person who wishes not to be a part of some group of people
Might I suggest that such a person start by removing himself: physically, psychically and socially from that group of people. That means abandoning any claim to (at a minimum) real property made possible by that group of people. If the assertion is that you can't remove yourself under those terms, then I would agree that you are subject to tyranny. If on the other hand, the demand is to have your cake and eat it too (i.e. retain all your goods and title thereto) - well, that doesn't work for five year olds; there is no reason that an intelligent, capable adult should expect it to.
"That means abandoning any claim to (at a minimum) real property made possible by that group of people."
Just out of curiosity, how would you define "made possible by" in this instance? And, having answered that, do you postulate that the group of people in question is the same group of people that a person might be wishing to withdraw from?
I'm interested in that too. I have seen it argued elsewhere that, in effect, only practitioners of complete autarky can practice anarchy. I'm not sure that that is what juris_imprudent is contending here. Call it the angle of my forehead if you must, but I would be obliged to get a clarification.
You just described Heinlein's "Rational Anarchist" in the person of Professor Bernardo de la Paz from The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.
Who then went on to head a revolt against the Lunar Authority and Earth.
And why did he do it? Because he chose to do it. This isn't a logical transform, it's the messy facts of life. Every moment presents choices and every thinking human makes them. That's true of every single human on the planet. The point is to figure out where you want those choices to lead and try your best to keep to that pattern. I make no claims to perfection. I only claim to try.
BTW, what exactly did Prof's rebellion gain him and Luna, in the end? ;)
A coronary?
The Loonies got rid of Authority, and went on to (promptly!) make their own mistakes.
But new worlds were opened for those who didn't want to share in the mistakes. Ah, fiction.
Joel:
I was suggesting that a person who wishes not to be a part of some group of people, but who is forced at implicit or explicit gunpoint to contribute to that group as if he were its happiest volunteer, is being robbed.
No, I didn't misunderstand you.
http://xkcd.com/669/
You said:
deserves to be driven out of it.
Now, yes, I understand your point about what if someone wants nothing to do with anybody - and that's a valid point. Today there's not a lot of places - still, some, that you can go.
But that means you don't deal with the society at all. Most people who talk about things like that forget the total system, and want to just talk about the upsides, or an imaginary future that isn't populated by real people.
And when people can "opt out" of paying for it, many *will*. That's what you're missing.
http://everything2.com/title/The+Little+Red+Hen
So how about it moke, and other Paul supporters? Care to answer these questions?
"Perhaps you could explain why the Constitution is wrong about this. [War being carried out only under Federal authority.] How, exactly, would it work to have the military not protect you, while protecting the rest of us who do want that protection and are willing to pay for it? Would a foreign military or guerilla force be free to bomb your house, but not your neighbor's house?"
"So how about it moke, and other Paul supporters? Care to answer these questions?"
Apparently, the answer is "No."
So for the record, it seems that it is not physically possible for a defending military force (as in a military force protecting an area, even if the appropriate actions necessary to provide that protection are elsewhere) to pick and choose which houses/people to defend or fight on behalf of.
Furthermore, the lessons of history show that the larger the base of resources supporting a military are, the more effective that military is at doing its job. For example, almost no local militia (as in attached to a city, township, county or parish) has the resources to support advanced weapons of war such as aircraft, ships, missiles and probably even modern battle tanks. Therefore, in order to be effective, larger areas of protection and resources are necessary to field an effective military. So at minimum, state level military units are a necessity for an effective fighting force.
Furthermore, a national level fighting force can be even more effective than a state force.
Of course, a national level force could also be very effective against the country's own population unless there are safeguards in place to prevent such abuses. That's why the federal military is subject to the Rule of Law, with the National Guard at the state level and the 2nd Amendment for the personal level, for those times when the Rule of Law breaks down.
Furthermore, if one state were to declare war, it would tend to drag other states into that war against their will, whether through the enemy of the declaring state attacking surrounding states, or the necessity of those states getting involved to maintain national integrity into which the Constitution binds us. That's why it seems necessary for the Constitutional limitation on declaring war only at the national level.
Bottom line, denying the inherent problems of deciding what to defend and what not to defend on a house by house, apartment by apartment, or even person by person basis strikes me as just as reasonable as a clock barking and smearing itself with poo. And that is why I cannot support Ron Paul despite agreeing with him on the other 90% of the Constitution.
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>