Historic Quotations Post II:
In terms of a defense of democracy and its virtues, I can think of no greater summation than the Four Freedoms speech made by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in January of 1941:
( cut for quotation length )
( cut for quotation length )
Why isn't that an absurd result?
Being forced is the operative statement there. As long as there is the option to opt out there is no conflict. Surely even you can see a distinction between voluntary association/support and involuntary?
I wasn't aware that most libertarians were free to opt out of those public services, or being required to pay for them.
This does not stop anyone from trying. Laws require one of two thing to be effective. A) willing compliance, or B) the implicit threat of violence.
Really, the latter two are just "willing compliance." The threat of force that meets with no willing compliance is not an effective law.
Someone is really saying when they say that "there ought to be a law" is that agents of the government should imprison and/or murder somone on their behalf if that person does not not do as they say.
But you've just contradicted yourself. If an effective law can also rely on "willing compliance," then the person could just as easily be saying that people ought to take it upon themselves to conform their behavior to a specified standard.
And that ought to be typically what we expect, isn't it, when we call for a law? No law can possibly be effective unless most people decide to comply with it, requiring force in only relatively rarely. Most of my clients, for example, comply with a law that no one effectively enforces. Similarly, I comply with a number of laws even though physical state coercion is a remote possibility.
Think about that the next time someone proposes a bill banning Big-Gulps or incandecant light bulbs.
Well, given that the people proposing such laws would obviously reject any assertion that Big-Gulp sellers ought to be murdered if they do not cease selling Big-Gulps, your attributing to them that intent seems to be a bit preposterous.
Reply
Why should I consider it an absurd result? and even if it is absurd, why should that invalidate it?
Surely you've heard th old churchill joke about how democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried.
I wasn't aware that most libertarians were free to opt out of those public services, or being required to pay for them.
They aren't, and that is the source of much of the conflict. Not that long ago one had the option to simply buy land in an unicorperated territory and set up camp. But lately the Federal and State governments have been cracking down on such communities and "anti-social" behavior in the name of "public health". Thus we find ourselves at the current impasse.
This does not stop anyone from trying. Laws require one of two thing to be effective. A) willing compliance, or B) the implicit threat of violence.
Really, the latter two are just "willing compliance." The threat of force that meets with no willing compliance is not an effective law.
No, they are not the same thing. In one case you have those who refrain from commiting acts of rape, murder, etc... out of fear of getting caught. In the other you have those who refrain from such acts out of a personal moral standard or simply because they never felt the inclination in the first place.
They represent two seperate and distinct mindsets/motivations.
Well, given that the people proposing such laws would obviously reject any assertion that Big-Gulp sellers ought to be murdered if they do not cease selling Big-Gulps, your attributing to them that intent seems to be a bit preposterous.
It's not preposterous at all.
The fact that they refuse to admit it, even to themselves, doesn't change the underlying truth of the matter.
Reply
Leave a comment