Wikileaks and government power

[varrin]

After a barrage of linguistic assault against liberals and the Obama administration, the closing paragraphs of Justin Raimondo's article about about liberal disdain for Wikileaks forwards this astute observation:

"This is blowback, guys: the very spying and surveillance you wanted as weapons in the "war on terrorism" are now being turned on

Comments

[maineshark]

"For a political government to exist morally, it must first not initiate force against individuals, and second go no further than protecting individuals' rights against such aggression from others (usually known as criminals)."

Which, of course, requires that it be an anarchic form of government. Because only anarchic government fails to initiate force.

Once there's some exception declared, the place crumbles under its own weight and tyranny results.

[madfilkentist]

"Anarchic government" is a contradiction in terms -- literally, no-government government.

[maineshark]

False. Anarchy means "no rulers," not "no rules."

If a dozen folks get together and voluntarily agree to certain rules and an arbitration system of some sort in case a rule is broken, they've created a government. However, since they all voluntarily joined, no one is ruling anyone else.

[madfilkentist]

For a dozen people, this can work. For a million, unanimity is impossible. How does an "anarchic government" deal with those who don't want to participate?

Those who are clearly known to have committed acts of force (say, robbing someone) are pretty easy to deal with; they've initiated force, so proportionate force can be used against them in return whether they've consented or not. But it's typical to have people who are merely suspected of having done so, and a trial is necessary to establish guilt or innocent. If a person is suspected of a robbery, based on strong but not yet conclusive evidence, can a government such as you conceive arrest him and bring him to trial against his will? If not, how would it proceed?

[maineshark]

What's your point? That some percentage of criminals would slip through the cracks? That is overwhelmingly the case, already.

You seem to be applying a double-standard. You want the alternative to offer perfection, when the status quo doesn't even offer anything vaguely close, creating more crime than it prevents.