Flame — HabitableZone

Flame » in reply to "Farnham's Freehold" is fiction, Tom

Fiction and facts
Tom Brosz — (archived)

Okay, I'm maybe missing what you mean by "inviolate sanctity of individual human beings."

I know what Jefferson meant by "I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." I know what Rand meant by "I swear—by my life and my love of it—that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."

It seemed to me that your definition did not encompass my ownership of what I have created, the basis of all property rights. If I'm misinterpreting something, please let me know. I don't know what you mean by "accepting dispossession" either, so I can't comment on it.

Suffice it to say I currently live under a government that has taken on the authority to run my life in many ways, and that encompasses one fuck of a lot more than paying my taxes every year. The fact that of all the governments on Earth, this is the least oppressive, is a bit frightening. The fact that a good portion of our political leadership thinks the power of the State should be absolute is also a bit frightening.

I'm sorry if it seems I'm leaning on you specifically--I'm not--but I have to listen (not just here) to people who advocate that food, shelter, health care, and everything they need be provided by an all-powerful state, but that's okay as long as they have the right to abortion, to read what they want, and the right to stick a gerbil up their butt. Most people seem to think some forms of state interference with one's life are acceptable and others aren't, and that is the point I'm trying to get at.

I don't believe freedom is divisible. Sorry.

Now:

The libertarian principle does not require isolation, or anarchy. There was more than one person living in Galt's Gulch, and rules for living there.

Libertarian principles require that cooperation not involve a gun. It's that simple. When a bunch of people get together to work something out, one person is not permitted to use force to shove the rest of the group around.

A consensus can be reached in groups. Compromises can be made. Agreements on who makes the decisions can be arrived at. But when force enters into it, you have a problem. You make consensus decisions without force every day, and don't even notice it. Think about how you and three other guys decide what will be on the extra-large pizza you order. You knock it around, and arrive at a compromise. The pizza will not have everything each person wants, but everybody will be satisfied with it. Consensus. If Fred says he'll let the air out of your tires if he doesn't get anchovies, you have a problem. Does that happen often? Maybe everyone will decide that George should pick, because the rest of the group doesn't want to hassle with it. If George orders a sucky pizza, he doesn't get to pick next time.

This is how most human interaction works. No guns. And it works pretty well.

I don't know how to get this idea across. The belief that human beings will behave correctly or sensibly only if forced to by their moral and mental superiors is not one I can easily comprehend, from either end of the political spectrum. The main difference between the two ends of the spectrum is that the socialists currently have the guns. So far, I haven't been threatened with jail or fines if I don't join the fundamentalist Baptist church or have my wife wear a veil.

One example of dealing with the Enlightened:

Currently my neighborhood is dealing with a multimillion dollar light-rail mass transit system that nobody asked for and nobody needed. It's going broke. The modern electric trains tool down the landscaped tracks with about two people in each car on a good day. The mind boggles to think what could have been done with the much more heavily-used bus system if the money had gone there.

The Planners decided we needed such a system. The market didn't demand it. People were getting to work other ways. Their attitude was that the person who is driving his own car is a stupid, benighted fool, who doesn't understand the Big Picture like they did. My attitude is that my car goes where I want it to when I need it to, and that's what I want. That's my picture.

The two people in the train do serve one purpose: They can be hauled in front of the press to proclaim that without this wonderful mass transit system, they would surely die. At least one such person can be hauled forward for every statist program of any size you can imagine, and so it all goes on.

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (117 posts)