3 ms·

There are a lot of people who live in places that are essentially lawless, but that experience isn't freedom like extreme libertarians might believe. It's tota

There are a lot of people who live in places that are essentially lawless, but that experience isn't freedom like extreme libertarians might believe. It's total fear that at any moment 20 people in shitty Jeeps can drive up and threaten to cut off your hands unless you kill your parents and join their gang. This is what we refer to as the state of nature. At some point, people get pretty tired of it, so they form their own gangs to fight back. Time goes on, decisions have to be made about how to run things, you make a couple of rules, and before you know it you've got yourself a government. But what I find more dangerous is this ersatz common sense tone in the essay. It lends the argument a certain weight, like "boy, balancing of rights sure is tricky. Can we __really__ trust governments? I mean, Nazis." Please no one fall for this. The rule of law is a bedrock principle of human civilization, not a bullet train to totalitarian town.

pdonis 8y ago
> The rule of law is a bedrock principle of human civilization The article is not advocating abandoning the rule of law. It is advocating judging laws based on a particular criterion. The fact that many existing laws do not meet that criterion does not mean no laws do, nor does it mean the only alternative is to abandon laws altogether. For example, consider the law against murder. Does it meet the criterion? Of course. Having a law against murder does not make it easier for the government to persecute the innocent.
- tacomonstrous 8y ago
  >For example, consider the law against murder. Does it meet the criterion? Of course. Not at all. What if the Jew in the attic had to kill an errant Nazi out of self-defense?
  - pdonis 8y ago
    > What if the Jew in the attic had to kill an errant Nazi out of self-defense? Killing in self-defense is not murder.
- camgunz 8y ago
  The essay is full of slippery slopes. It advocates against "government monopoly of medical care", arguing that if the government knows everyone who's getting care it can discover you. This applies to essentially every government service: social security, taxation, driver's licenses, regulations on utilities, etc. etc. etc. It's not a dissimilar stretch to say that because murder investigations have led police to develop sophisticated forensics departments that the author would be against murder laws as well. After all, if the government can discover you were at a crime scene, couldn't it also know who was in your attic? It's just a blatantly terrible test, wrapped up in faux wisdom and scare tactics. Balancing of rights is far more complicated than this and deserves better treatment. In fact, _most_ issues are complicated and don't readily yield to this kind of simple test. Frustrating though it is, it's a reality we have to deal with if we want to be at all fair and truly address complex issues.

pdonis 8y ago

> The rule of law is a bedrock principle of human civilization The article is not advocating abandoning the rule of law. It is advocating judging laws based on a particular criterion. The fact that many existing laws do not meet that criterion does not mean no laws do, nor does it mean the only alternative is to abandon laws altogether. For example, consider the law against murder. Does it meet the criterion? Of course. Having a law against murder does not make it easier for the government to persecute the innocent.

tacomonstrous 8y ago
>For example, consider the law against murder. Does it meet the criterion? Of course. Not at all. What if the Jew in the attic had to kill an errant Nazi out of self-defense?
- pdonis 8y ago
  > What if the Jew in the attic had to kill an errant Nazi out of self-defense? Killing in self-defense is not murder.
camgunz 8y ago
The essay is full of slippery slopes. It advocates against "government monopoly of medical care", arguing that if the government knows everyone who's getting care it can discover you. This applies to essentially every government service: social security, taxation, driver's licenses, regulations on utilities, etc. etc. etc. It's not a dissimilar stretch to say that because murder investigations have led police to develop sophisticated forensics departments that the author would be against murder laws as well. After all, if the government can discover you were at a crime scene, couldn't it also know who was in your attic? It's just a blatantly terrible test, wrapped up in faux wisdom and scare tactics. Balancing of rights is far more complicated than this and deserves better treatment. In fact, _most_ issues are complicated and don't readily yield to this kind of simple test. Frustrating though it is, it's a reality we have to deal with if we want to be at all fair and truly address complex issues.