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 )
I stumbled across this blog post durring the most recent gun control push and it perfectly articulates the objection that I have always felt, but never quite been able to put my finger on.
The only real place where Roosevelt's four freedoms are relaibly met is prison.
Reply
Governments are a neccesary evil that need to be actively prevented from becoming tyrannies.
Contrary to the straw man that is usually presented very few libertarians actually object to paying for things like firefighters, EMTs or public roads, or going to court to settle a grievance rather than a back ally.
What they object to is someone that someone in New York can make demands of someone in Wyoming, and that if they fail comply to the federal government will send men to kick down your door, shoot your dog, and throw you in prison for the crime of disagreeing with the body politic.
Reply
So, you're fine with a political philosophy that leads you to conclude that every possible state violates morality to some greater or lesser extent?
Personally, I would view that to be an absurd consequence.
Contrary to the straw man that is usually presented very few libertarians actually object to paying for things like firefighters, EMTs or public roads, or going to court to settle a grievance rather than a back ally.
It's not exactly a strawman if any hypothetical libertarian could validly argue, on your view, that being forced to pay for firefighters, EMTs, public roads, or the judiciary amounts to an immoral imposition they have not agreed to. Your response isn't so much to reject the strawman as it is to say that libertarians often choose to agree to such impositions. "We could be strawmen," you say, "but we're strawmen with brains!"
What they object to is someone that someone in New York can make demands of someone in Wyoming, and that if they fail comply to the federal government will send men to ( ... )
Reply
Not every possible state, just the ones that currently exist. That's a "yes" by the way. ;)
It's not exactly a strawman if any hypothetical libertarian could validly argue, on your view, that being forced to pay for firefighters, EMTs, public roads, or the judiciary amounts to an immoral imposition they have not agreed to.
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?
Nobody in New York has the power to do this.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. 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 ( ... )
Reply
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 ( ... )
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 ( ... )
Reply
I doubt the people who replaced their monarchies with republics thought of it as a 'necessary evil'. For there to be evil, there must be a good counter-part, a good alternative. Something can't be inherently evil with no frame of reference.
Reply
Seriously?
“Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms (of government) those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny”
-Thomas Jefferson
It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man who knows what the law is today can guess what it will be tomorrow.
- James Madison
I suggest you read The Federalist and a few of the early presidential stump speachs. Are they not teaching this in high school anymore?
Reply
I see you haven't answered my question about what is 'good' if a republic is 'evil'.
Reply
In Republics, the great danger is, that the majority may not sufficiently respect the rights of the minority.
-James Madison
As for your question...
The ideal would be individuals interacting with each other out of mutual agreement or, barring that, at mutual need or respect. However such individual interaction is impractical for groups numbering more than a few hundred and impossible for groups numbering in the millions. As such we invent abstractions like ethnicity, nationality, class, creed, and party, that allow us to face an without the having to query every single person one by one.
These abstractions allow the state to function but they are also, by nature, dehumanizing. They need to be viewed with suspicion, and used with caution. Above all we must never lose sight of the fact that they are abstractions and not reality. Monsters lie down that road.
After all, it's one thing to say "let the world burn" or "hang that nigger". It is another thing to say "let Molly burn" or "hang Tony Crawford".
Reply
These abstractions allow the state to function but they are also, by nature, dehumanizing. They need to be viewed with suspicion, and used with caution. Above all we must never lose sight of the fact that they are abstractions and not reality. Monsters lie down that road.
After all, it's one thing to say "let the world burn" or "hang that nigger". It is another thing to say "let Molly burn" or "hang Tony Crawford".I have no idea how this answers my question. The 'good' is 'individuals interacting with each other out of mutual agreement or, barring that, at mutual need or respect'? Well, this is a view of humanity that's not really supported ( ... )
Reply
There are people peacfully coexisting and coming together all over the place. What else would you call a community, or nation? Do you really think that the only thing preventing your friends and niehbors from murdering you for the shoes on your feet is the fact that it is illegal for them to do so? Your society terrifies me.
It's not that a Republic is a neccesary evil, it's that ALL governments, or rather the abstractions required for them to function, are a neccesary evil. Some forms are just less prone to mass corruption and murder than others.
Sometimes one has nothing to offer.
Everyone has something to offer.
Reply
Then, by all means, remove the laws that make it illegal to do so.
It's not that a Republic is a neccesary evil, it's that ALL governments, or rather the abstractions required for them to function, are a neccesary evil. Some forms are just less prone to mass corruption and murder than others.
It's funny that in terms of potential for harm, direct democracies come pretty close after dictatorships.
Everyone has something to offer.
Well, time to cancel the disability check program.
Reply
It's funny that in terms of potential for harm, direct democracies come pretty close after dictatorships.
Not funny at all, simply true.
As I said before, it's not that republics are good it's that they tend to be less bad.
Reply
Reply
Likewise, if people really are as worthless and irredeamable as you say why do you give a fuck? I would expect you to consider "piles of skulls bleaching in the Sun" to be an optimal result.
Reply
Leave a comment