5 ms·
We have laws not to murder people because the state assumes a monopoly on violence. In absence of retributive justice we did and do continue to murder each othe
by thegrimmest 5y ago
We have laws not to murder people because the state assumes a monopoly on violence. In absence of retributive justice we did and do continue to murder each other in blood feuds that last generations. This is perfectly normal human behavior. The state is there merely to provide a framework in which people who hate each other can be expected to surrender their natural right to use violence.
To me that's where the right of one group (the government) to legitimately use force ends. The sledgehammer that is the legal system should only be used to administrate the peace.
Beyond that, the only concept that can really be impartially measured is liberty. How free are you? In the graph of all possible actions, which are legitimately available to you? Everything else is an attempt to define good or evil, or right and wrong, and is therefore some form of religion. In a world where we are all equal, have no oracle to discern good from evil, and disagree diametrically, the only reasonable thing to do is optimize for liberty, and let everyone figure it out for themselves.
Scale does matter, but not in regards to rights. If you have the right to do a thing, you have the right to do it a million times. If you have the right to write something down, you have the right to keep it in a database. If you can publish your letters, you can do so over HTTP as well. This isn't a new conversation. People have been publishing memoirs of their private correspondence since the printing press. What disturbs me is how we seem to be shifting our consensus that they have the right to do so.
- labster 5y agoThe state needs not have a monopoly on violence. Dueling was outlawed in France in 1626, and early modern France was certainly a state. The dueling laws only became necessary because our mores on violence changed.
- thegrimmest 5y agoEarly modern France was a monarchy, not a democracy and liberté, égalité, fraternité had yet to be uttered there.
- SiempreViernes 5y ago> We have laws not to murder people because the state assumes a monopoly on violence. This theory utterly fails to explain laws against murder from the millennia when there was no such thing as a state that claimed monopoly on violence. In the feudal system there was no such thing as a unified state entity, it was just a bunch of people invested with certain rights organised into nested hierarchy of fealty, no monopolies there, but still they had no problem ruling people guilty of committing murder. > If you have the right to do a thing, you have the right to do it a million times. You've never seen those signs that say you get only one free cup of coffee have you?
- thegrimmest 5y agoThe source of legitimacy of feudal monarchies was divine right. This is not the case today. Our governments derive legitimacy from the consent of, and in defence of the liberty of, the governed. This is why I object to these laws. They only constrain my liberty to interact peacefully with other people, and I certainly don't recall consenting. > You've never seen those signs that say you get only one free cup of coffee have you? Indeed I've seen the signs. I would very much object to similar laws.
- SiempreViernes 5y agoYou are free to leave if the governed collectively have decided on laws you don't agree with, and they'll probably ask you to if you go on about your demand to be granted veto rights on all legislation. As an aside, I'm slightly curious how you explain the legality of said sign using your absolutist libertarian framework.
- SiempreViernes 5y agoActually, never mind. I saw your other replies and it's clear you see epicycles as a badge of honour.
- thegrimmest 5y ago"free to leave" isn't really an excuse for tyranny is it? The legality of the sign is derived from the fact that it's on private property, from which the owner has a right to expel anyone for any reason. Violating the rules of the sign is simply grounds for expulsion from said property, not criminal consequences. That's the difference between a rule and a law.
- sokoloff 5y ago> If you have the right to do a thing, you have the right to do it a million times. Voting is an obvious exception.
- uncomputation 5y ago> monopoly on violence So, you’re using Max Weber’s theory of the state in a contradictory way in my reading. Weber’s theory of the state as being the society which derives its authority from a legitimate monopoly on violence was contrasted _against_ the very “natural liberties” that you seem to espouse (e.g. the rights of peeping toms, the rights of private shopkeepers, and the limitation of the government). Either you argue that the legitimacy of the state stems from its legitimate monopoly on violence as a community (thus allowing it to dictate “decency” as you say) or you argue that the legitimacy of the state derives from the citizenry’s own natural rights to self governance and liberty.
- thegrimmest 5y agoI'm not strictly arguing for Weber. I'm basically proposing that beyond majority consensus, we have no way of determining that the peeping toms or the discriminatory shopkeepers are in the wrong. In combination with the problems of majority consensus (if a majority agree to murder a minority, is that okay?), the presupposition that we are all equal, and have a right to exist as and where we are, the only reasonable conclusion is to enforce the absolute minimum of law required to maintain the peaceful coexistence that differentiates civilization. This is doubly true in a multicultural society.