February 14, 2011

Last week I asked some serious questions and promised that I'd write about each one. So, I'll start with the premise for all of the questions.

The letter of the LAW... the only legitimate law.

No human being has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being nor to delegate that initiation.

Only things that are evil of themselves, mala en se, can be the proper objects of law. Murder, rape, theft and destruction of property belonging to another person are examples of mala en se crimes.

We can have a long discussion about exactly what the "initiation of force" means, but most people seem to work pretty much from a non-aggression position without too much disagreement, as long as the one making the attack is not in some government uniform or flashing a badge, of course.

Why is that?

Do you (or any number of people) have the right to "authorize" someone else to initiate force against others, even though it would be immoral and illegal to do so yourself? Think about that for a moment.

You can't walk into a store and clean out the cash drawer without being arrested for theft, but the police can do exactly that, especially if the cash belongs to someone designated by mala prohibita "laws" as a criminal. Mala prohibita simply means something that is prohibited, rather than evil or wrong itself. Drug use and professional/business licensing are examples of mala prohibita "laws."

When all of the "reasons" are sifted, the one that is heard most often is that all of the "laws" that prohibit this or that behavior, use of certain tools, and possession of certain chemicals or plants are necessary because people "MIGHT" hurt themselves or someone else. 

This is taken even farther, of course, when those fearful of what others "might" do are convinced that those things prohibited are immoral or indecent in some way in and of themselves, and that "society" has some "right" to prevent it - "for their own good," of course.

The assumption of that "right" of society is very important for people who are fearful for their safety, and usually have little or no understanding of self responsibility or self defense. They've been conditioned to believe that they can be safe if enough "laws" are enacted to restrict the choices of others who "might" choose to harm them.

History, however, demonstrates clearly that "laws," regardless of the intensity of enforcement, cannot actually prevent anyone from doing anything. It can only punish the doer after the fact if they are apprehended. And that applies equally when people are arrested and punished for what they "might" do or plan in the future.

The attempt to enforce these laws, however, does eventually damage respect for all law - even the law of non-aggression. And so, the fabric of society is destroyed by the very thing that was thought to preserve it. The harm that people fear is visited on them by the agents employed to keep them safe.

All of this is, naturally, my own thinking and conviction. I'd love to hear from you, whether or not you agree with me, but especially if you don't. Send me an email. Or visit me at Facebook.

Next we'll take a look into "human rights" and how they've been so badly misunderstood.