His argument is about monopolies on force, not gun rights. In his scenario would you create a monopoly on force? That’s what youadvocate. Allowing people to keep their guns in the analogy is analogous to allowing multiple privaet companies to work at the same time.
His example isn’t analogous in that way. I’m not arguing for gun control. I’d love to see everyone armed to the teeth, providing for their own personal safety. But who enforces the laws? Who sorts it out? Do they all just draw on each other every time a disagreement arises? Or do they make rules(vote for laws)pick one calm person to decide isues (a judge)and give him an assurance (Constitution) that all others will abide by his ruling. Naturally he needs an enforcer of his rulings; so he picks the quickest draw(police) to keep the others in line. They obey out of fear, yes. But the alternative is literally to constantly live life at the point of a gun.
So you would not give up your gun. How come? Wouldn’t the proposed “deal” lower the probability of violent conflicts on the island?
Did you by chance read my most recent post to Wheylous before this question to me? I wasn’t arguing for disarmament or conflict avoidance, but for rule of law, ajudged and enforced by one or more agreed-upon parties. Nobody gives up their gun; but they agree to resolve disputes through the intervention of the calmest head and the quickest draw(the court and the police). Would conflict be less if they all just watched their own backs? I guess it depends on the people and how many coconuts are on the island. But If no system of conflict resolution were proposed or accepted, it would definitely be a more tense place. And humans don’t like to live under constant threat and fear of death. It sucks to go without sleep for a few nights; let alone the rest of your tension-filled life.
DarylLloydDavis, let me ask you this: do you believe that land and natural resources (at the very least) are owned by states? Why or why not?
You’re a real stickler about terminology, Autolyos; take it easy. Ownership seems like a term better suited for persons, not states. States claim territory and its resources, usually by force–“discovery”, invasion, colonization and assimilation. They hold onto their territories and resources by maintaining prohibitively-threatening militaries to keep other states at bay. And they sustain such militaries by imposing contribution to it upon those protected by it, those sharing in the resources.
The essentials of your argument: We need to at all time preemptively use violence to prevent violence . Correct?
That’s not exactly a direct quote, no. The real capacity to bring decisive force against a potential aggressor is the surest prevention of aggression. It doesn’t always work; but it works better than promises and pinky swears.
You are contradicting yourself. So you would not accept the proposed “deal” then. Why not? If, according to you, a monopoly on force would be the best way to resolve conflicts on the island, why not provide said monopoly (the elected one) with the tools to do his job most efficiently? Why make it harder for him to do his job by allowing everyone to keep their guns? How is he supposed to enforce his resolution of conflicts without holding an overwhelming monopoly on force? What if no one volunteered to do this (conflict resolution) job under such (precarious) circumstances? Would you then give up your gun? Wouldn’t you be able to sleep better at night knowing that the elected one holds all the guns?
misThat’s not exactly a direct quote, no. The real capacity to bring decisive force against a potential aggressor is the surest prevention of aggression. It doesn’t always work; but it works better than promises and pinky swears.
Yes, it’s not a direct quote.
So you are saying that we do not need to use preemptive violence to prevent violence, yet you believe that a monopoly of force should use force should any other entity try to also go into the market of protection. Contradiction?
If, according to you, a monopoly on force would be the best way to resolve conflicts on the island, why not provide said monopoly (the elected one) with the tools to do his job most efficiently? Why make it harder for him to do his job by allowing everyone to keep their guns? How is he supposed to enforce his resolution of conflicts without holding an overwhelming monopoly on force?
Start with the term “monopoly on force.” That is a buzzword that I reject. Force is inherent in a punch to the face; a club to the head; etc. The state does not now, nor will it ever, have a monopoly on it. If an armed intruder invades your home, you can use force to protect yourself. You can use force against the state. The state has the sole power to enforce the law–a role played by the quickdraw in my scenario–because most people don’t want to live in a tension-filled, every-man-for-himself world. It isn’t necessary that the enforcer have all weapons–and may not be possible to take them–but having the quickest draw is sufficient to keep the others “law-abiding.” It’s the least possible compromise of individual rights necessary to ensure all rights.
What if no one volunteered to do this (conflict resolution) job under such (precarious) circumstances? Would you then give up your gun? Wouldn’t you be able to sleep better at night knowing that the elected one holds all the guns?
If he volunteered and he was a scumbag, no. And if he was good-hearted but no one else was disarming, no. It isn’t about total helplessness before the “state.” It’s about agreeing to surrender absolute independence in favor of a system that is the least bad
So you are saying that we do not need to use preemptive violence to prevent violence, yet you believe that a monopoly of force shoulduse force should any other entity try to also go into the market of protection. Contradiction?
No. Sometimes we do need to use preemptive violence to prevent violence; but that isn’t the essence of my beliefs at all. Preemptive force in your question means the police arrest others before a crime is committed; police enforce the law after it has been violated. And they should be the only enforcers of the law; because the police should protect everyone equally, paid by everyone, owing nothing to any one private group or person.
What if no one volunteered to do this (conflict resolution) job under such (precarious) circumstances? Would you then give up your gun?
Sorry. I misread your question the first time: I thought is said, “If someone volunteered…” If no one volunteered then of course I would not give up my gun. But it still isn’t about giving up guns: it’s about giving up absolute independence and total distrust.
So at all times that someone tries to provide a private defense agency you would advocate the government to use force to prevent them from offering their service to the public.
So at all times that someone tries to provide a private defense agency you would advocate the government to use force to prevent them from offering their service to the public.
If that defense agency tries to arrest people and throw them in jail, rather than just detaining them until the police get there, then yes, I would advocate government force to punish them for doing so.
Who said anything about illegal search and seizure? And who said anything about jails? I’m talking about a company that has police officers on call if someone needs help against a criminal.
Who said anything about illegal search and seizure? And who said anything about jails? I’m talking about a company that has police officers on call if someone needs help against a criminal.
If the cops aren’t certified by the state to make arrests, then doing so anyway is an illegal seizure–of a person. It’s the 4th Amendment. Police officers can be hired by a company now–when they’re off duty. The cop you see at a high school football game is often working a side job for extra money. They can arrest someone; but they’re still just security. And even security guards can detain someone and call the police; so why do they need an officer of the law?