You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: When people stop blaming objects for the actions of reckless or evil people, there can be a greater sense of sanity in the world. #2a #gunrights #shallnotbeinfringed #guns #boogaloo
By your logic, society ought not even have laws. Why even have laws against murder, theft, and rape, when enforcement will only "erode" liberty. I gather all societies ought to aim towards the libertarian utopia in Somalia, where roving band of thugs and pirates exercise their liberty without "state interference."
Every tool is a potentially dangerous tool.
And you're right: why have laws? Things that are actually wrong-- murder, theft, rape, and other types of political behavior-- don't need to have legislation written for you to have the right to defend yourself from those committing the acts. And all other legislation is a violation just like murder, theft, rape, etc.
And did you really just fall into the Somalia trap? Even after you were warned? LOL!!!
http://www.peterleeson.com/Better_off_Stateless.pdf
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1880
Ah, so you and your lot are advocating rule by force alone. I am sure the idiot libertarian who set-up his utopia leeching-off the Thai economy exercised his "right" to defend himself; more like the "right" to die while being absolutely mental. Under your system of non-governance, the only reason why the pirates do not rape your wife, eat your children, and burn your house down is because they haven't found you yet.
The fact that you think roving gangs are numerous enough to pose a significant threat to everyone says something about you. You sound like one of those religious apologists who claim that we can't be moral without someone else telling us what to do. This is the reason anarchists say that statism is a religion. I'm sorry if the lack of a police state ruined your country, but that doesn't mean a police state is the solution to everything.
You are yet another disciple of Rousseau's failed and false idea of "natural morality" of men. You are either ignorant or willfully denying the consequence of allowing humanist fanaticism to undermine sociocultural restraints. The Terror, Paris Commune, or the numberless humanist revolutions of the past 2 centuries demonstrates the delusion of "natural morality" in men. In fact, any sane man observing 2-year olds interacting would realise the insanity of Rousseau and his disciples' claims. Morality is not an instinctual phenomenon; it must be taught. The one under the sway of blind faith is you and your humanist fanatics.
If you think British parliamentary system is equivalent to Stalinist totalitarian state, then you ought to check yourself into a mental institution for therapy. Just because sane men refuse to live in Lord of the Flies type social construct does not make them apologists for totalitarianism.
No rule. Not by anything or anyone. No one has the right to govern another person, because that "right" can't exist.
And I didn't say anything about non-governance-- I advocate post-political governance. Governance without the unethical, antisocial stuff that is politics. Market governance uses the economic means and is ethical.
If you believe the State protects you, I guess you believe the cattleman is the cow's protector, too. (Until butchering day, anyway.)