Defining Libertarianism (was Defining Terrorism)

S. Dale Morrey sdalemorrey at gmail.com
Thu Jun 27 07:29:15 MDT 2013


Actually I'm not sure.  I know I come off as being all conspiracy and OMG
they're coming for us, but it's intended as satire and just plain venting.
I don't feel a need for body armor, and as a rule I don't click on ads.


On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 7:22 AM, Jeff Nyman
<jnyman at americanleadership.net>wrote:

> So, how much was the armor?
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 3:47 PM, S. Dale Morrey <sdalemorrey at gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > LOL the ads in my gmail are getting more and more frightening.
> > One recent ad was for Browning rifles.
> > The ad attached to this email is for AR500 Body Armor, evidently the most
> > affordable level 3 body armor on the planet and also made right here in
> the
> > USA!
> >
> > Ok yeah I really need to get off gmail, the topic relevance of ads is
> > getting moving from humorous to creepy.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Daniel C. <dcrookston at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Russel Caldwell <caldr704 at gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > What makes government force so legitimate?
> > >
> > > Did you realize, when you asked this, that you were opening a
> > > philosophical can of worms that has been addressed / tackled from
> > > various perspectives over at least the past two centuries?  I guess
> > > that sounds kind of accusatory, and that's not my intention.  It's
> > > just such a perfectly phrased question, in a subject area that is
> > > pretty commonly addressed in civics classes (or in my case, writing
> > > classes where your professor happens to be a civics nut,) that it rang
> > > my "college professor is opening a discussion" bell.
> > >
> > > Some broad strokes on the issue:
> > >
> > > - Governments are (at least ostensibly) accountable.  This is part of
> > > why agents of the government who are authorized to use force (e.g.
> > > police officers and soldiers) wear uniforms with identification on
> > > them.  The uniforms identify the person wearing it as someone who is
> > > acting on behalf of the government.  It establishes accountability for
> > > the actions of the person wearing the uniform.  If you don't like what
> > > someone in uniform does, you can go to the person that he or she is
> > > accountable to and complain.  Ultimately, in the United States, the
> > > government is accountable to the citizens.  (In practice we know that
> > > this is not 100% true, but it is what we strive for.)  This has all
> > > kinds of ramifications when it comes to wars, the ability of police to
> > > make arrests (an arrest being a use of force,) etc.
> > >
> > > - Governments are (again, ostensibly) an extension of a social
> > > contract.  (See Hobbes's Leviathan.)  If I'm remembering my readings
> > > correctly, Hobbes posits that humans enter into a society and grant
> > > our governments the sole authority for force in exchange for the
> > > increased freedoms and protection that joining the society give us.
> > > The alternative, he claims, is for us to live in a state of nature, of
> > > a constant and continual war of all against all.  Obviously this is
> > > more of a philosophical enterprise than a statement of historical
> > > fact, but it does make for a good thought experiment.  So, to bring it
> > > back to the question of what makes government force legitimate: it's
> > > legitimate because everyone who participates in a society implicitly
> > > (or explicitly, in some cases) cedes the right to use force to their
> > > government.
> > >
> > > > As was pointed out earlier most
> > > > people are disillusioned with the system to the point that there are
> > more
> > > > and more of us that see no point in participating in the political
> > > process.
> > >
> > > This does bring into question the legitimacy of our current
> > > government, but that doesn't necessarily intersect with the question
> > > of whether governments are the sole legitimate wielders of force in a
> > > society.
> > >
> > > > In a free market every transaction is freely entered into by both
> > > parties.
> > >
> > > This is probably a good time to mention the tyranny of violence.  It
> > > is often proposed that we should all "just get along" or that humans
> > > should work toward an end of violence.  These ideas are fantastic in
> > > both meanings of the word.  They are fantastic ideas that I agree with
> > > and which I hope we can bring to fruition, but they are also fantastic
> > > in that they pretty much come from the realm of fantasy.  This isn't a
> > > statement about the fallen nature of man or anything.  (I personally
> > > think that the human future is bright and that we can overcome our
> > > darker nature, but that's a separate topic.)  It's just the nature of
> > > violence: there is no room for consent when violence gets involved.
> > >
> > > In this fantasy world where we all live without violence, all it takes
> > > is for one person to decide that they're going to be violent and
> > > suddenly everyone else loses their agency.  The choice to live in
> > > peace no longer exists: you can either be violently subjugated, or you
> > > can try to stop the violence... which ironically requires being
> > > violent in return.  And of course you didn't choose violence -
> > > somebody else did, and when they chose it your ability to live in
> > > peace disappeared.
> > >
> > > Without a government (which is the sole authorized proprietor of
> > > violence) in place, a free market is only free so long as everyone
> > > plays nice.  Alternatively you could create a free market in which
> > > mercenary protection is available to those who can afford it, but you
> > > probably didn't even finish reading that statement before you realized
> > > how wrong that situation would go.
> > >
> > > > When the government does something most of us have no idea what
> > > transpired,
> > > > and we cannot possibly know. There is not enough time in the day to
> > keep
> > > > track of what these jokers are doing. Just look at the Obamacare
> mess.
> > > How
> > > > many, even in congress, really know what is in that bill, much less
> > what
> > > > the consequences will be.
> > >
> > > Our current American government, yes, absolutely.  It's a damn mess.
> > > But that doesn't mean that all governments everywhere must be a damn
> > > mess.
> > >
> > > >In my mind, destructive monopoly power is derived from the government.
> > >
> > > A government (which, as defined in this email, is the sole arbiter of
> > > force / violence) can certainly create monopolies.  But free
> > > capitalism, with no government, will also result in monopolies.  As is
> > > typical, the truth and the best option both lie somewhere between the
> > > extremes.
> > >
> > > -Dan
> > >
> > > /*
> > > PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
> > > Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug
> > > Don't fear the penguin.
> > > */
> > >
> >
> > /*
> > PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
> > Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug
> > Don't fear the penguin.
> > */
> >
>
>
>
> --
> *Jeff Nyman*
> *IT Coordinator*
> American Leadership Academy
>
> /*
> PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
> Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug
> Don't fear the penguin.
> */
>


More information about the PLUG mailing list