![]() |
10/14/08
|
||||||||||||||||
![]()
|
March
20, 2006 There will always be some people who don't respect the rights and property of others, and many who are not able to support or defend themselves. The idea of individuals and voluntary groups helping each other and defending their own property is too "messy" and uncertain. Some believe that human nature is essentially flawed, making universal self-government impossible. But wait a minute... If human nature is flawed, (and I don't say that it isn't) are some less flawed than others? What would make some people more qualified to protect our rights than ourselves? Who would decide, and how? Again, the political process has never proven very successful at this, no matter how it is set up. Who is better qualified to defend your rights and property than you are? Does anyone else have the same incentive to do so - 24/7, 365 days a year? How about the rights of your elderly mother, orphan or abused children or the folks in the local soup kitchen? Who is best able and willing to help and protect them and why? If you can't answer these questions clearly, how does turning their lives over to a bunch of disinterested strangers make any sense? Then, even if we assume there is a real need for it, just how does a limited government go about protecting rights and providing national defense without force and theft? Government produces no wealth, so the only options are voluntary or forced funding of whatever they do. How many governments do you know of that are completely supported by volunteers? Right... Or, if you are honest, how much force and theft are you willing to live with in order for someone else to be responsible for your safety and rights - even assuming that's possible? And what's even more important, why should that be imposed on everyone else, regardless of whether or not they see the same "need" for it? If you could have - and pay for - the "government" you wanted and leave everyone else alone, we might have a deal, but it just doesn't work that way. Life without central government would obviously be no utopia. There would still be some who engaged in all kinds of aggression. Some people would not manage to provide for themselves, and there would be no guarantee that anyone would help them. (They would have good incentives to work hard and maintain friendly relationships with their families and neighbors instead.) But I think we can agree that central government has not provided us with utopia either, no matter what flavor you choose. Laws against various forms of aggression have not reduced the incidence of it, and all of the wealth redistribution schemes have only managed to increase the number of those who will not or can not provide for themselves, along with damaging the economy as a whole. If you still think that you want a limited government, please describe what it should do, how it could actually function without force or theft, and how such government could honestly be kept "limited." I'd really like to understand how anyone thinks that is possible. 1. Take a good look at the Libertarian Party platform and explain to me how all that can be defined as a proposal for "limited government." Is the LP completely consistent with self-ownership? I really would like to hear from everyone who will make the effort to answer these questions in good faith. MamaLiberty Links from
the previous articles: Self ownership essay: http://www.mises.org/rothbard/ethics/eight.asp The Ludwig von Mises Institute: http://www.mises.org/ What about the "poor?" - Reinventing America: http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=289 Advocates for Self-government: http://www.self-gov.org/home.shtml These will lead you to many others. |
Medication "Abuse" - By Government The Poor Seniors - How Do We Care For Them? "The
Black Arrow" By Vin Suprynowicz Out of the Gray Zone Book Review Reclaiming Ownership Of Our Lives Complete Archives for The Editor
| ||||||||||||||
|
Submit
Feedback
|
|
||||||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |