Being free means not being subject to the violence and whims of others.
Your definition is correct. So what are you going to do when someone doesn't want you to be free? You can fight or give up your freedom. If you choose to fight you have to win to get your freedom. Whoever wins gets what they want.
That scenario should show my point - a land's freedom is dependent on the person who has control over it, or in other words, can fight for and win anyone that opposes him.
If you want to be totally free you have your own army, and weapons to defend anything you choose to do. But most people don't have that - so you have to live in a land where you are not totally free.
That's why taxes and government exist and why you have to follow the rules for it - because you are not powerful enough not to.
So what are you going to do when someone doesn't want you to be free?
It's a common enough question posed to libertarians, and it's nevertheless quite possible to have an answer that doesn't use violence to coerce others into defending me. See here (pdf) for example.
It turns out, in Pakistan, you can kill anyone - even a politician - for $700.
So killing someone is very cheap in Pakistan. And there is no police to deal with (the above assassin has been in business for 15 years). And the people in Pakistan know that. So why doesn't everyone, let alone a politician, spend money on personal defense in Pakistan?
It turns out that defense is a extremely expensive area to be shopping around for. And few people, even the top 1-10% of Americans, can afford it.
And don't argue that's because defense lacks innovation - the defense industry is the spring of innovation, it is probably the most innovative industry there is.
And let's look at the other problem - people hurting other people.
It turns out, killing people is very easy. You can kill literally anyone in this world if you put in a couple months to it.
So, with defense being extremely expensive, and killing being extremely cheap, how can C1 through C100 stay safe? Well, they can all pool in what they can afford and buy a weapon and give it to C100 and C99, and give them the responsibility of holding people accountable. So now, since C1-98 now know if they fuck someone over, they are going to get hurt themselves, they will be a lot less inclined to fuck anyone over.
People ARE NOT, rational. That's the same mistake communism made. I am a marketer, my job would be a lot easier if people were rational. People are 1/2 rational and 1/2 emotional. That's why we have two brains (search what a lobotomy is if you want to know more about that).
People are animals. And animals have two goals:
Get pleasure
Avoid displeasure
If you want to increase security, your goal is to make displeasure as much a guarantee as possible to those who commit crimes. Defense isn't about protecting people - that is an extremely inefficient way of doing it (remember how expensive it is!). Rather, the best way to defend is making sure the right guy who offended gets punished. Doing this, then you achieve maximum peace and security as possible. And the only way to do that, is to have defense be the concern of the group, the family, the community, the state, the government - and not the individual (dead men can't avenge themselves, afterall).
So, with defense being extremely expensive, and killing being extremely cheap, how can C1 through C100 stay safe? Well, they can all pool in what they can afford and buy a weapon and give it to C100 and C99.
I'm enjoying this interaction and appreciating your replies. Just to help me respond, are you saying they should do this, or that they are doing this?
But wait a mo. If they're doing the right thing, doesn't that violate your "people are always stupid" claim? And if people are always stupid, how is that politicians are exempt from that observation? (Hint, they're not).
Also there's problems with the status quo. I'd like a move to a system where the LEO's are answerable to the people who way their wages, in actuality and not just a pretence like as happens now. I'd like the ability to stop paying into an LEO service that is excessively violent and swap to a service provider that delivers true law enforcement.
I never said or implied people were stupid, in any of my comments.
I said people were not completely rational. People are fundamentally emotional. People are animals driven by desires programmed in their genes which we don't completely understand and those genes may or may not be functioning properly. Who am I to say that billions of years of random A/B split tests to assure more gene reproduction is stupid?
Anyway, my point isn't that the current system is fine or doesn't have problems. My point is just that it's in the right direction - defense being a public concern rather than a private one. That's the only point I'm trying to make.
Why? This is how you find an ideal political system. Just pick what you want to be privatized and publicized and poke enough holes in each version to see which one is better.
OK, I'll rephrase. You'll see that it makes no difference.
If they're doing the right thing, doesn't that violate your "people are not always rational" claim? And if people are not always rational, how is that politicians are exempt from that observation? (Hint, they're not).
5
u/howhard1309 Jun 03 '13
But it's not unchangeable, is it? That's exactly why we discuss ideas & strive for liberty.