My friend bought up the issue of the violence against women worldwide and issues like rape and sexual assault. She favors the UN legislation that would put sanctions on governments worldwide for tougher enforcement on violence against women.
What could be done about this on a free market? If Rothbard hasn’t already written on it (which I assume he has) what do you think?
Laws against battery, murder, rape, etc. already protect women from battery, murder, rape, etc.
What’s the point of sanctions on governments? So that everyone in that country can suffer so that there’s more poverty, less education, and MORE violence against women? Sanctions never do anything to help anyone- they’re the stupidest idea I ever heard of. Have you questioned the idea of legislating prosperity?
Violence against women would be taken care of like any violent act. With the victim receiving compensation from the attacker, although I’m less well-versed on the subject of private courts- I’d say that if an attacker commits rape, whether the victim is male or female, they’ve decided that they do not respect the victim’s rights, so the victim is completely justified in killing the attacker.
Free-markets, nor anything else, are ever going to remove violence from this world(then what’s the point of believing in paradise amirite?)
And I favour the UN passing legislation for people catering to my whims. This isn’t an argument.
They do no such thing.
Have a problem? Nothing WORLD GOVERNMENT can’t fix.
What do you mean?
Laws punish after the fact, maybe. They do not stand like a guard, protecting women from these crimes. Women are protected from these crimes by decency and the fact that most people oppose aggression, don’t engage in it personally, and will defend people if they see it happening. In the few cases that happen anyway, the government sends in people to clean up the mess, then makes a lot of noise about doing something about it.
Women could arm themselves. Like my wife, who now has a Glock 19.
Ok. I figured you meant that. By “protect” I mean that it is already illegal. Laws against murder, etc. already make it illegal to murder, etc. women.
^^^ This. And men would be in a better position to protect their women (i.e. mothers, wives, and daughters) because it wouldn’t be illegal for them to pack heat, unlike in many statist cities today.
What do you think of Charles Johnson’s post “Women and the Invisible Fist”?
WORD.
John Lott goes into this in detail in More Guns, Less Crime. Women and visible minorities have the most to gain by conceal and carry laws but, like idiots, tend to be the most opposed. Concealed handguns are the most cost effective means of reducing violent crime by far.
I know you weren’t asking me, but I thought the post was retarded beyond belief. I guess that crime exists just to create demand for a state. Spontaneous order right?
Hollow points 9mm is the answer. Or a .45 if she isnt petit. [;)]
Bad things exist, therefore, I support it when a government tries to stop bad things from happening.
And serial killers should stop killing. Duh.
The problem is that the incentive structures of both those solutions is way, way off. Not that they’re necessarily doing something intrinsically bad (other than collecting taxes etc)
Do you have any specific objections? Or is this one of those “I don’t even know where to begin” things?
The most sadistic person in the world may have second thoughts about killing or raping somebody out of fear of going to prison. Punishment acts as a deterrent. Off course, I’m not saying that the state does a great job of finding and punishing criminals, but to say that it does nothing is pretty ridiculous.
@ Sage
To briefly summarize the article:
Not all spontaneous order is benign. Some spontaneous orders are oppressive. Men, who are anonymous rapists (“Myrmidon police-blotters,” “front-line masculine shock troops, terrorist guerrillas in the longest sustained battle the world has ever known,” “invisible fist”), cause women to seek protection from other men. These male protectors require obedience (“patriarchal coercion”) in exchange for the protection they offer. Therefore, anonymous rapists, unwittingly, bring about the spontaneous social order of patriarchy (“male supremacy,” “systematic political oppression”).
Now, I almost don’t know where to begin.
I’ll start out by pointing out that humans are not angels. There have always being criminals since the beginning of time. If potential victims seek protection, this is not a form of oppression. This is merely a desire for a particular good, security. If they contract for protection, they agree to certain terms in exchange for protection. There is nothing oppressive about this. It is purely voluntary.
There are also reasons, other than protection, why women seek relationships with men: The attraction between the sexes, the superior productivity of family formation (intergenerational division of labour), the informal insurance and old age security that family provides, love and affection.
The methodology of this argument relies on the fallacious use of value loaded terms and concepts to draw the conclusions which the author wishes to draw. The coercion of group X is unwittingly bringing about conditions Y, response Z is adopted, therefore Z is oppressive. The conclusion simply doesn’t follow.
Also, given the current anti-discrimination legal environment, the oppression is, if anything, the other way around.
So in conclusion, I don’t think that “libertarians and anarchists must recognize patriarchy as a system of violent political oppression older, no less invasive, and no less powerful, than the violence of the police state or the warfare state.”
Jacketed HPs are better. Or is there a ban or something?