6 ms·
> does any one or any group of people has the moral right to initiate force against two consenting adults agreeing to a mutual contract because we think we know
by deciplex 11y ago
> does any one or any group of people has the moral right to initiate force against two consenting adults agreeing to a mutual contract because we think we know better than they do about what's best for them?
Yes. Society broadly has this 'right' if you want to call it that (I would refer to it as a 'duty'), though we are wise to exercise power there in a reasonably limited fashion e.g. making up a 'Bill of Rights' etc. What you're referring to forms the basis of the FDA, of OSHA, of the EPA, etc etc., all of which have had an overall positive effect on our economic health, our environmental health, and our literal bodily health. Monopolizing force and using it to promote egalitarian principles is a fundamental part of what makes Western civilization.
You seem to be suggesting that if we as a people decide to enact and enforce laws via our elected government at all, then we give up the right to complain about laws we perceive to be unjust, and agitate for change. In fact, that is precisely how the system is meant to work. Just because you're miffed you aren't getting your way all the time, is no reason to tear the whole system down, and I think you'll find yourself part of a vanishingly small minority in believing so (very fortunately, even for you, even if you don't realize it).
- patrickaljord 11y ago> Monopolizing force and using it to promote egalitarian principles is a fundamental part of what makes Western civilization. Yes, I think giving up force to a monopoly is a terrible idea. Also, I don't see how forbidding two consenting adults from committing victim-less crimes (ie non-legal mutual contracts) is promoting equality. If anything, it's promoting tyranny. > and I think you'll find yourself part of a vanishingly small minority in believing so (very fortunately, even for you, even if you don't realize it). Yeah, I was told the same thing living in a very religious country when telling people about my atheism so I'm used to this kind of patronizing. Funny how Statism sounds exactly like religion. Bastiat was right when he said the State replaced the Church with little differences.
- deciplex 11y ago> Bastiat was right when he said the State replaced the Church with little differences. Yes, yes. Good for you that your threw off the yoke of your oppression or whatever the shit you're blabbering about. If the preference to live under the rule of law makes me a fucking "statist" then call me a statist.
- patrickaljord 11y agoThe problem is that the State doesn't respect the rule of law and basic human rights. The war on drugs, spying on citizens, habeas corpus, the Patriot Act, illegal wars, torture and so on are just a few examples that come to mind.
- deciplex 11y agoIn most democracies "The State" is more responsive to the will of the people than you give it credit for, though I will agree with you that it is not as responsive as either of us would like. Moreover they are orders of magnitude more responsive to the will of the people, than whatever strongman or military junta would inevitably fill in the enormous power vacuum left in the wake of dismantling every government in the first world, assuming human civilization could indeed survive such an event in the first place. (And who would quickly reestablish a monopoly on force anyway.)