For those you may have come in late, this is an ongoing debate between Terry and myself, with others joining in. What Terry is reaching for, while avoiding the terminology, is the notion of the "social contract", developed by John Locke and others, which underlies our constitutional republican system of government. The problem he seems to have with doing that arises from the fact that the terms of the social contract are a duty to mutually defend the rights of the members of society, by force if necessary, the term for which is /militia/. It is an attempt to enjoy the benefits of mutual protection without doing one's duty to provide that protection, imagining perhaps that everyone can secure himself by his own private means, perhaps by hiring bodyguards, something that is not feasible for most people in most situations. The debate inevitably turns to attempts to define the terms, "force", "initiate", "aggression", etc., and finding it is not that easy to apply these broad terms to specific, complex situations. Such application calls for more detailed principles for how to apply them, meaning, as mathematicians put it, the simple NAP formulation "lacks sufficient structure" to be adequate as a guide to decisionmaking. The "terms "force" and "aggression" soon lead to "fraud", "breach of contract", and "neglect of a public duty/negligence". In other words, one soon reinvents the entire subject matter of law and courts to adjudicate it. Anyone who measures the services of the justice system against the need soon discovers the inadequacy of both the justice system and private remedies outside that system. One also finds that the traditional mechanisms that controlled human behavior through social pressure, such as families and churches, have broken down, and the prospects for replacing them are not evident. We are becoming a nation of barbarians as new generations of people appear without being adequately "socialized" to behaving as responsible citizens of a constitutional republic. That is a formula for eventual breakdown into a Hobbesian "war of all against all". I don't claim to have all the solutions. I offer a few things that might help, most of which are related to restoring compliance with the Constitution of 1787 as originally understood, but I don't claim that is a complete solution. Part of the problem is affluence, and it is difficult to argue that it would be morally better for people to be poor. Better would be to prepare people to handle affluence without letting it degrade their morals.
-- Jon Terry L Parker wrote: >Jon, how did you conclude that I called for NO govt? > >GOVERNMENT: that agency which is exercising the greatest ability >for enforcing compliance to its aims in a given arena >(hint: it's not always a formal state) > > >Also, I think that if we're not able to go into general society >and tell any person that it's NOT 'ok' to physically attack an >innocent person, we should retire our mouths :) > >The core libertarian principle is not some radical unknown, >untried concept; it's the basis for civilized society throughout >history and in our world today. We're only insisting that people >be more consistent about the premise they (VIRTUALLY ALL), >consciously or unconsciously, already use. ACTUAL sociopaths >are a relative small percent of the population. > >Here's what I've written before: > >Without consistency to a 'physical agression truce' the common ground >for 'liberty & justice for all' in the material world just vanishes! > >While MOST people, MOST of the time, on MOST issues, consciously or >not, will abide by this 'truce' many seek 'exceptions' for their own >causes. So, they will claim that such a 'commonality' doesn't exist; >and that those who say otherwise are being absurd. Of course, >people, including these 'exceptors' would NOT be able to walk out >their door each day if there was no effective physical aggression >truce already working. But, that observation seems not to disuade >these exceptors from attempting to con other people about the >matter. > >The truth is, that it is CONSISTENCY to this 'physical aggression >truce' (aka NAP 'non aggression principle, ZAP 'zero aggression >principle' and so on) which protects the 'self-ownership' autonomy of >virtually all persons. Most people DO seem to inherently understand >and usually apply the needed reciprocity; even if they don't know how >to spell that word, let alone consciously define it. This, in fact, >is the underlying principle for UNIVERSAL libertarianism; >aka 'liberty & justice for ALL' > >So, a question to would be 'exceptors' is: what makes you think you >have the right to initiate, or do a credible threat to initiate, >physical force against the person or justly held possessions of >another? > >PleaseSee: What's at the Heart of What Libertarians are Selling? >at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/30419 > > >-Terry Liberty Parker >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian ---------------------------------------------------------------- Our efforts depend on donations from people like you. Directions for donors are at http://www.constitution.org/whatucando.htm Constitution Society 7793 Burnet Road #37, Austin, TX 78757 512/374-9585 www.constitution.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---------------------------------------------------------------- [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
