3 ms·

The real problem is not with drones, or spying. It's the monopoly of violence that people think is okay. Government = violent agency that achieves any of its go

The real problem is not with drones, or spying. It's the monopoly of violence that people think is okay. Government = violent agency that achieves any of its goals using threats with a gun. Taxation, regulations and border controls - all of it is a gun pointed at you if you disobey. If you dislike what any group of people are doing: 1. They are typically funding themselves. 2. You can boycott them peacefully. Not pay them, discourage others from paying them, ostracize people who you disagree with etc. Without violence, absolutely voluntarily. (Everyone does that every day on the market by choosing what to buy and where to go and what NOT to buy and where NOT to go.) So with the government it's a different story. You, for instance, not against drones. That's fine, I will not advocate any violent action against you. But if I am against drones, I cannot withdraw my participation. Taxman will point a gun at my face if I refuse to pay taxes, or try to use alternative currency (to bypass inflation) where it's not "allowed". So people who dislike some gov activity cannot do anything about it. And that's the real source of anger. They can do all the talking, but cannot vote their money out of what they dislike.

anigbrowl 13y ago
The real problem is not with drones, or spying. It's the monopoly of violence that people think is okay. Government = violent agency that achieves any of its goals using threats with a gun. Taxation, regulations and border controls - all of it is a gun pointed at you if you disobey. Government does not have a 'monopoly of violence.' You are perfectly entitled to defend yourself if attacked by a criminal, for example. You don't have a right to initiate violence. It has not been monopolized by government; citizens have chosen, through law, to pool a part of their soveriegnty in government to fulfill certain ends, such as the creation of a police force. Taxman will point a gun at my face if I refuse to pay taxes, No he won't, he'll send you a polite letter and if you're intransigent he may garnish your wages or bank account or real property. So people who dislike some gov activity cannot do anything about it. Apart from voting, writing books, testifying on capital hill, enacting ballot measures, running for office, and all the other stuff you choose to ignore. If I've said it once I've said it a million times: government is not a monolithic entity, it's a bunch of people who are in large part simply representing the aggregate views of other people. It didn't land in a spaceship and impose itself on a bunch of free humans, we institute these things ourselves to advance our mutual interests.
- shardling 13y ago
  >Government does not have a 'monopoly of violence.' You are perfectly entitled to defend yourself if attacked by a criminal, for example. That's a misunderstanding of what the phrase "monopoly of/on violence" entails. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence) Though to be fair, I'm not sure the OP really understands that. The actual application of physical coercion is delegated or permitted by the state ... the law might permit individuals to use physical force in defense of self or property, but in this case ... the ability to use force has been granted by the state, and only by the state.
consonants 13y ago
This market fetishism sounds familiar, have you been trawling through von Mises or something? I've heard the same diatribe from vocal internet libertarians and am curious as to the source of this meme.

anigbrowl 13y ago

The real problem is not with drones, or spying. It's the monopoly of violence that people think is okay. Government = violent agency that achieves any of its goals using threats with a gun. Taxation, regulations and border controls - all of it is a gun pointed at you if you disobey. Government does not have a 'monopoly of violence.' You are perfectly entitled to defend yourself if attacked by a criminal, for example. You don't have a right to initiate violence. It has not been monopolized by government; citizens have chosen, through law, to pool a part of their soveriegnty in government to fulfill certain ends, such as the creation of a police force. Taxman will point a gun at my face if I refuse to pay taxes, No he won't, he'll send you a polite letter and if you're intransigent he may garnish your wages or bank account or real property. So people who dislike some gov activity cannot do anything about it. Apart from voting, writing books, testifying on capital hill, enacting ballot measures, running for office, and all the other stuff you choose to ignore. If I've said it once I've said it a million times: government is not a monolithic entity, it's a bunch of people who are in large part simply representing the aggregate views of other people. It didn't land in a spaceship and impose itself on a bunch of free humans, we institute these things ourselves to advance our mutual interests.

shardling 13y ago
>Government does not have a 'monopoly of violence.' You are perfectly entitled to defend yourself if attacked by a criminal, for example. That's a misunderstanding of what the phrase "monopoly of/on violence" entails. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence) Though to be fair, I'm not sure the OP really understands that. The actual application of physical coercion is delegated or permitted by the state ... the law might permit individuals to use physical force in defense of self or property, but in this case ... the ability to use force has been granted by the state, and only by the state.

consonants 13y ago

This market fetishism sounds familiar, have you been trawling through von Mises or something? I've heard the same diatribe from vocal internet libertarians and am curious as to the source of this meme.