Here's another quote from Larken Rose's book, The Most Dangerous Superstition.
Agents of "authority" (cops, soldiers, et. al.) are imagined to have the right to use force not only in the situations where anyone would have such a right (i.e., self-defense), but in other situations as well. It stands to reason that if everyone has the right to use inherently justified "good force," and "the law" authorizes agents of government to use force in other situations as well, then "law" is the attempt to legitimize bad force.
Neither the enthusiastic voter who proudly posts a campaign sign in his yard nor the well-intentioned citizen who runs for office understands this fact. If they did, they would understand that "democracy" is nothing more or less than majority-approved immoral violence, and cannot possibly fix society or be a tool for freedom or justice. Despite the mythology which claims that the right to vote is what makes people free, the truth is that all "democracy" does is legitimize aggression and unjustified violence. The logic of this is so simple and obvious that an enormous amount of propaganda is needed to train people to not see it. If everyone has the right to use inherently righteous force, and government agents are allowed to use force in other situations as well, then, by its very nature, what government adds to society is immoral violence.
10 comments:
In an enlightened society, this would make perfect sense. And we would all run unicorn ranches, rainbow factories, and big rock candy mines.
In the real word, elimination of the "immoral force" options of soldiers and police removes a barrier between us unicorn ranchers and the forces of darkness who don't mind being immoral.
The option of course would be vigilante justice.
So the question becomes, who do you want to help you kick ass when ass needs kicking?
Professionals or amateurs?
And how much do you want to pay them?
I agree that it's a tough call.
Condescension in the opening paragraph.
Second paragraph, the setting up of a straw man.
Third paragraph knocks down the straw man.
I am getting to the points of the fourth, fifth and sixth paragraphs. I am still reading the book, but I think these are some of the best philosophical questions I've seen posed in a long time.
What are the options of the "tough call?"
My contention has been for some time that government affects me in too many negative ways. A step in the right direction is less government.
Rose's proposition of no government hasn't yet been sold to me, not least because I think it is an impossible goal, although I am obviously intrigued with his philosophical argument so far.
Somalia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia
That's what it looks like at the end of the anarchy rainbow, I'm afraid, Bob.
...on the other hand...
http://mises.org/daily/5418
...considering the context, anarchy seems to be working better there than the alternative.
Yup. As per my original (aka: "strawman") point. The biggest bully wins. State or no state, it seems.
Dod you read Cormac McCarthy's "The Road," Bob?
I dod.
Sow the movie, too.
One way or another there will always be a king of misery or goodness or some of both. Like Somalia, without government, thugs rule. Eventually the toughest/smartest thug becomes king of thugs. In the end there will always be a boss good or bad.
We've proven that even in a Democracy, government can become thuggish, yet there is still a bit of hope that in a Democracy we stand a chance, as small as that seems today, of holding those in charge accountable for their thuggishness.
The book wad better than the movie.
Post a Comment