Friday, December 28, 2007
Inane quote of the day
From a libertarian discussion list:
I would prefer some formulation of the NAP [non-aggression principle] that would imply consent to
some initiations of force to achieve a net reduction in force initiation. - Kevin Bjornson ¶ 10:02 AM
I would prefer some formulation of the NAP [non-aggression principle] that would imply consent to
some initiations of force to achieve a net reduction in force initiation. - Kevin Bjornson ¶ 10:02 AM
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
The alleged inanity is not self-evident. All initiations of force are wrong, but to stop some without stopping others could lead to catastrophe.
For example, suppose that all taxation the US were stopped, without replacing them by user fees. That would disband the US military and also police, resulting in far more intiations of force as Jihadists and other aggressors would have free reign.
Liberty is not a Platonic ideal, but exists in the real world. This reality does not always conform to our wishes.
For example, suppose that all taxation the US were stopped, without replacing them by user fees. That would disband the US military and also police, resulting in far more intiations of force as Jihadists and other aggressors would have free reign.
Liberty is not a Platonic ideal, but exists in the real world. This reality does not always conform to our wishes.
I don't think that would disband the military, and police is a local function usually paid for through property taxes.
It _would_ reduce the military, we'd bring troops home from over 100 nations, and the root cause of jihadism's appeal would be extinguished. Nobody attacks us becase we're free, or because Madonna traipses around in underwear. They attack us because we have installed & supported corrupt & brutal dictatorships in their land, so that we can have access to their resources at below-market prices.
So reducing the military & having it focus on its' proper mission - the defense of this nation and its' Constitution - would reduce jihadism, making us safer.
Post a Comment
It _would_ reduce the military, we'd bring troops home from over 100 nations, and the root cause of jihadism's appeal would be extinguished. Nobody attacks us becase we're free, or because Madonna traipses around in underwear. They attack us because we have installed & supported corrupt & brutal dictatorships in their land, so that we can have access to their resources at below-market prices.
So reducing the military & having it focus on its' proper mission - the defense of this nation and its' Constitution - would reduce jihadism, making us safer.
Links to this post:
<< Home
