RoR: Forum

I found this quote of Ryan's to be so incredibly poignant.

From my perspective, it is on the level of the likes of Will Durant, Eric Hoffer, Thomas Jefferson, Robert G. Ingersoll, H.L. Mencken, George Orwell, Sir Karl Popper, Ayn Rand, Voltaire, and Oscar Wilde. Let's just say it's going into my "best of the best" file.

:-)

Thanks, Ryan.

Ed

Post 1

Monday, May 18, 2009 - 2:33am

Zero:
In the "Cheerios" thread, Ed Thompson pointed out that the alleged violation had been going on for a decade before the FDA acted. So what? Lack of enforcement is not endorsement. A robber cannot claim that the has been sticking up this same store for years and the police never stopped him before. If there is a fire downtown and the police are called to direct traffic, etc., the lack of enforcement outside of downtown is not an invitation to crime. When you are pulled over for speeding, the fact that "everyone else is doing it" is not a defense.

One:
Given constitutionally limited government that exists only to secure and protect natural rights, does the government have no role in crime or fraud prevention?

If not, then the police are completely reactive and must wait for a citizen complaint of a rights violation. Seeing armed men entering a bank, they must wait for the alarm. The "Terry Stop" would stop. (Look it up, Terry was a known felon with a gun outside a jewelry store.)

Similarly, the national defense forces could only be marshalled after an actual attack, never preemptively. North Korea's nuclear weapon and transcontinental missile are no cause for action.

Two:
It has been asserted here on RoR that the co-existence of Pinkertons, Burns, Wells Fargo and others was not an effect of the free market working toward justice. Rather -- as in the case of the non-war between the private forces of General Motors and Ford Motor -- these were entitites that subscribed to the same legal code, not to different codes.

If that is the case, then is the only purpose of government to provide the legal framework of society, leaving to the marketplace the products and services that people choose to enact and enable their protections within that context?

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 5/18, 2:41am)

Post 2

Monday, May 18, 2009 - 12:16pm

I disagree with the quote's validity. In most instances, armies stand for the primary purpose of protection, and the most effective way to protect a country is to have such military might that no one challenges it. In other words, military "guns" are used to prevent the need to use said "guns."

Another example is that many robbers carry guns into criminal situations not for the purpose of using the weapons, but for the purpose of scaring their unarmed victims enough that no counter attack is attempted. The odds of having an unarmed "hero" step up to defend against a robbery are much greater if the robber is unarmed himself. "Hero" situations are much less common when the unarmed would-be defender is facing a gun-wielding bad guy. My point is, the use of guns or other weapons as means to the end of avoiding physical confrontation is an age-old tactic that has been utilized to great effect throughout history, for a number of reasons. I'm not saying might makes right, I'm saying it's effective.

Intimidation is as powerful a defense as anything.

"when the gov't starts looking for ways to use their guns to prevent them from having to use their guns, there's a problem."

No. Other than defense against an attacker, this is the only thing I'm actually in support of our government using its guns for. Other than Pearl Harbor, no nation's military has attacked our country since the British at the beginning of the 19th century. I'm glad I don't live under threat of military attack every day like the citizens in some countries. Because we have the biggest guns, militaries worldwide, including Russia through the Cold War, have refrained from attacking us. I don't see a "problem" with that at all. Other than terrorist attacks, we have proven to be a pretty secure nation. We will never be Switzerland - neutral, popular worldwide. We are what we are. At least for the foreseeable future, and defending what we are (and what we are through eyes across the globe) requires big guns. Preferably, that defense will continue to come in the form of intimidation where we don't have to fire those guns.

JHM

Post 3

Monday, May 18, 2009 - 1:31pm

Michael,
Point zero: I believe that you are correct regarding endorsement. However, with regard to gov't regulation "We've been overstepping our authority for years, and no one stopped us." is equally invalid when when determining legitimate action.

Point one: Context dropping and faulty assumptions. In a free society the bank determines permission to carry a weapon on their property. If they don't allow it, as most wouldn't, a crime has already happened when someone does so. That would justify a police response. Also, Explain your reasoning behind the assertion that carrying a gun equates to intent to commit a crime. Regarding the "terry stop", pragmatism doesn't determine morality. Not to mention we are technologically advanced enough to solve the problem without random searches.

Regarding north Korea, we can marshal whenever the he'll we want. We can morally attack when attacked or when attack appears imminent. That isn't prevention. It's superior perception and competent defense.

Point two: No. The overall legal framework is enforced by gov't agencies. The market provides adjuncts within that framework. Personal security doesn't replace the police. It assists you in protecting yourself until the authorities arrive.

Post 4

Monday, May 18, 2009 - 1:47pm

Jake, you are describing deterence, not prevention. There is a difference.

See above regarding deterence. I concede your point that initiation of force as a preventative is the tactic of criminals. Exactly why our gov't shouldn't be using it on us.

Regarding intimidation, visible, confident superiority is better. Intimidation tries to force actions we want, which makes it a form of violence when exerted by the military. Initiation of force is immoral.

My first point is also the answer to your final one. Deterence is not prevention.

Post 5

Friday, May 22, 2009 - 8:52pm