Topic: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre - page 4. (Read 6889 times)

I don't disagree except in my case the rule of law is the law between two consenting parties via contract and sound defense is the personal use of best weapons available for personal protection or a private company offering the service of protection with the best weapons available.

We agree again.  I think the difference between us is that I have a far lower opinion of my fellowman than you.

My experience has been that if we don't have law, police, courts and an army, we will be kidnapped and our property taken from us.  We may be killed just because we have the wrong religion or skin colour.

That's why we need the rule of law and a sound defence.

You lock them in, he locks them out, I don't see a huge difference. It's a community decision either way. I think not giving explicit authority of violence to a single entity is healthier for the community though. There would be more confrontation within the community, hence more progress. There may be more violence between peers but overall violence would be reduced. How do we prove this? No idea.

Really? You must be joking.

Absolutely.

Great we have common ground.

What if you knew in advance that you were going to be kidnapped?  Would you feel it OK to physically prevent that abduction?

We already have societies that are rich and where we live in comfort and security.  If you want to take that away, I'm afraid the burden is on you to justify the change.  Saying that you think its wrong to arrest criminals is sort of silly - the alternative is to kill people without trial.  Arrest and trial is better.

Stop assuming stuff about me. I don't agree with everything LeFevre believed, just what I posted in my OP. I believe self defense is not only good it is absolutely necessary if one wants a society that is free to maximize it's potential. To put in a way you'll understand, if I were to be kidnapped I wouldn't only cut the ropes but I'd do what ever it took to escape and defend my freedom.

If you feel its wrong to arrest the kidnappers and rapist of Jaycee Dugard, then your objection to a police force makes perfect sense.  I know you admire LeFevre and he believed it was wrong to even damage the ropes of your kidnapper if you were abducted.

Really? Says who? Why is it a good thing? If I disagree why am I forced to pay for it anyway?


No, it's you who needs to think things through a bit more.

Abduction/imprisonment is wrong no matter who does it and I reject your mere statement that this is how we can protect ourselves from dangerous people. Besides it's just stupid and way too costly and inefficient.

I have a better idea: deal with people like that through ostracization where you simply refuse to do any kind of business with those who ignore certain rules or principles and if they can't buy food, clothing or shelter and if private property is protected by private security then the problem is fixed and they can live their barbaric lives in the wilderness where they wont bother anyone. Of course cognitive dissonance prevents such a thought even crossing your know it all mind let alone it being thoroughly considered by you.

I understand that you have an opinion; you already told me that.

What I'm asking for is why I your opinion should be universally accepted, especially when we're talking about the justification for inflicting the power of the state on millions of people. Even if your opinion is in fact the best possible way to organize society don't you think everyone who is forced to go along with it deserves a better explanation for why they should than "This is what Hawker thinks is best"?

In the Dugard case, I'm going to disappoint you.  I think it was a bad thing to kidnap and rape her and a good thing the guy who did it is locked up.  Its clear why you think police and a defense force isn't needed.  I have to say I am glad I don't live in the type of society you espouse.

How do you know? What is your standard of deciding what is a "good thing" and what is a "bad thing" and on what basis should that standard be considered universal instead of your mere personal opinion?

It's been my experience that people who throw around statements like this are generally putting up a smoke screen because they themselves have not really thought through their own positions but are merely parroting back the accumulated opinions of others. I hope to be disappointed in this case but so far it's looking like a long shot.

What an absurd statement.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping_of_Jaycee_Lee_Dugard

It was wrong to abduct her.  When she was returned to her family, the Garridos were arrested/abducted and they remain abducted/imprisoned.  That is a good thing.

Really, you need to think things through before posting them.

You can't legitimately divide human beings into two categories and say it's immoral for the "bad guys" to initiate force while at the same time it's virtuous for the "good guys" to initiate force.

What's wrong for one person is wrong for everybody.

I grew up in an environment where people were being snatched off the street and killed for having the wrong religion so I believe allowing the bad guys to initiate force is bad.  We know that if you don't have police and an army in control of your street, bad stuff will happen.  Its immoral to allow that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shankill_Butchers

By the way, these guys were citizen justice at its finest.  Some of their victims were Protestants but their tongues were destroyed with pliers before they got a chance to say so and then they were tortured to death.  That's what happens when you don't have police, courts and the rule of law.

But that's just not true, either on an individual level or on a societal level.

If I see that the police in my city are corrupt, and specifically that Officers Adams, Baker and Crowley are guilty of abusing their powers and hurting innocent people, I can't decide to fire them, or to start paying them $0. Yes, I could try to convince their bosses to do so, but the point is, it's not my decision as an individual.

And even if the entire society wants them gone, who's going to make it happen? As long as the people making the decisions an the people wielding the guns act in accord and protect each other, nothing can be done. In the U.S., over 90% of the populace was against the first round of bank bailouts. The rulers knew this. They ignored it, and nothing has happened to them. Even the voting is gamed. It may have been better in the past, and it may be better in other countries, but only because the ruling class wasn't inclined to be so brazen about flaunting their control, and the lack of the people's control. In any society, if the ruling class decides to stop pretending that the people have control, then the people will find out pretty quickly that they don't.



If I were to have a true choice, it wouldn't be from the alternatives you offer... I'd rather choose a society with no government, but with people choosing voluntary protection services (or self-protection,) and with enough wealth to defend themselves from foreign states too. If Afgahnistan can do it, then a government-less U.S. could easily repel foreign states, and likely several other advanced nations could too.

Now, I honestly doubt that'll ever materialize in my lifetime, or anytime in the near future, but it's the moral ideal, and the most practically effective in terms of providing security and allowing for prosperity, so of course I try to choose options that lead closer to that ideal.

Given an already advanced and wealthy nation, and the option of continuing its government or disbanding it (or at least disbanding the higher levels,) I'll always opt for the latter. And while I believe it'll lead to greater personal benefit for me, that's not why I'd choose it... I'd choose it because I believe that that is the moral option, because I believe that initiating force against someone who has not done so is wrong, and is one of the greater wrongs that mankind is capable of.

Not at all.

The abolitionists declared that slavery must be ended because the ownership of human beings is immoral. Figuring out a better way of handling agricultural labor requirements was not a prerequisite for abolishing slavery.

Governing people via the implicit or explicit threat of violence is immoral therefore people should find other ways of solving their problems.

Separation of powers is where you have law making, law enforcement and legal arbitration done in 3 separate organisations.  Without it, you end up with a single organisation that can make its own rules, enforce them against and adjudicate in its own favour if you disagree.

If you live in a society without this split, you live in a very unpleasant place and you have no real rights. 

Your Goethe quote shows you are still making the same mistake of saying that if you don't live in a perfect state, then the state you live in needs to be abolished.  Its like saying that you want people to walk around barefoot because cars aren't perfect.  What you need to do is offer something better.

What separation of powers are you talking about!? Just because some words were written on a piece of paper not signed by anyone does not separation of powers make, all it is is PR, a mere pretense to obscure the fact that a few people are using violence and the threat of violence to rule over the rest.

The only actual separation of powers can happen when there is no power to begin with, just a voluntary private contract between two or more consenting parties.




And before you make a delusional comeback comment think about how you're going to explain a mountain high of violations of this pretense of separation of powers, especially in those cases when separation of powers matters the most like all the unilaterally started and undeclared invading wars.