--- In [email protected], Jon Roland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Government is /not/ always a "criminal protection racket".
Yes, it is. In case you forgot, here is the encyclopedia definition of a protection racket: "an extortion scheme whereby a powerful entity or individual coerces other less powerful entities or individuals to pay protection money which allegedly serves to purchase "protection" services against various external threats." I challenge you to name one Government that does not match this description. > As for "duty", that is simply what is collectively rational for survival > and mutual protection of rights. It is not arrogant to recognize brutal > reality. > > If you don't do your duty to protect the rights of others, the rights of > everyone, including you, will be lost. The only way to protect rights > against organized enemies is to organize to defend them, and that > requires mutual sacrifice. Correct, but as I have said before, forming a criminal protection racket is not a valid way to meet this challenge. > When an armed criminal gang comes battering down your door, who are you > going to call for help? Never mind whether they are street thugs or > government officials. Are you then going to try to hire bodyguards? And > if no one is willing to protect you at a price you can afford, then > what? And if the bodyguards turn on you and try to kill you, who do you > turn to next? Friends? Neighbors? And why should they come to your > rescue if you have not been willing to come to theirs? Perhaps you missed the part where I said that "I prefer to form voluntary alliances that will serve us well when the time comes to mount a defense". Of course, you probably just ignored what I said so that you could attack a straw man instead. > Government can be honest, efficient, and legitimate. There have been > many periods of such government in the past, in many places. Perhaps > they didn't maintain that state of virtue, but in almost every case the > failure came not from the excesses of officials but the failures of > people to control them when they began to get out of line. Or maybe it was their failure to understand the true nature of self-regulating Government: FRAUDULENT. > That means > you. If you aren't working very hard every day to supervise government, > then you become an accomplice in its abuses. That is the ancient law of > agency: the principal is responsible for the misdeeds of his agents if > he fails to correct them. If you are not doing your part to prevent > abuses then you are even worse than the abusers, because you could have > stopped them and didn't. When you participate in Government you increase its power over you by giving it the air of legitimacy. Instead, I prefer to attack the very foundation of Government, which is the belief that "Freedom = Chaos" and "Control = Stability". In the real world, exactly the opposite is true. ---Sasan
