Craig Haynie wrote:
. . . then let's change it together, through voluntary cooperation without threats of violence being imposed on those who disagree.
Let me make it clear that I do not belittle the inherent threats of violence. They are real, but I think they are necessary in a civilized society. We cannot let people do whatever they please. The libertarian ideal cannot be achieved in real life, although in fact we now have more personal freedom than at any time in the history of any country. For example, we can educate children at home, something that was never allowed in Colonial or modern America. But authorities must have recourse to force. For example, a person who speeds or drives drunk must be stopped, by force if necessary.
Furthermore, it seems to me you are focused too much on the use of brute force with guns, while you disregard other injustices, such as forcing people to cross dangerous streets with no stoplights, or forcing people to live with the stench of sewage. You may call that a negative; i.e. not doing something is not the same actively doing something, but an ordinary person has no means to erect a traffic light, and cannot build a sewer system, so as a practical matter that distinction is meaningless. You are also ignoring large numbers of people who are actually killed by the government and by industry, with gross injustice.
We force people living in rural areas near coal fired generators to breathe filthy air. This kills roughly 20,000 of them per year. The power companies and the government pay nothing to the survivors. We all benefit from the electricity. The problem can be fixed easily with existing technology, but collectively we refuse to pay a penny or two extra per kilowatt hour, which is what it would cost. It seems to me that is the unfair use of brute force, every bit as much as coming to your door to arrest you for not paying taxes. Pouring smoke and soot into your lungs is just as bad as shooting you. This is not the "threat of violence" that you fear -- it is actual, on-the-ground violence, for all intents and purposes. There are two huge differences:
1. You CAN pay taxes if you want to. The government never demands tax money from people who did not earn the money in the first place. Whereas the people killed by coal smoke usually have no means to move elsewhere. If they could move, they would. They can complain, but the the power companies locate coal plants near disenfranchised poverty-stricken people knowing that the politicians will ignore the suffering. When the power company builds a plant near a rich neighborhood, they make it gas fired.
2. If you think we pay too much taxes, or you think government regulators should let the power companies slaughter 20,000 people a year, you have recourse to vote for a party that will borrow the money from the Chinese instead of taxing you. At present there is no parties in favor of cutting expenses or bringing the wars to a rapid conclusion.
- Jed
