If I had a euro
for every time I heard »yes, your philosophy of libertarianism is all fine and
well and the principle of non-aggression sounds good, but we all know that
there is in any society a given number of people who will not adhere to these
rules and therefore we need government to bring all these people in their
place«, I'd probably be building a mansion somewhere in Thailand right now.
Once you get the
chance to talk to people and show them how libertarianism is really only based
on the principle that a man (and all men) should not initiate violence against
a fellow human being and his property, the argument above is probably the most
common one. Or, in other words, »yes, your goal seems morally correct but we
all know that in practice it is not going to work.« Therefore, the non sequitur
argument that we need a coercive government.
Perhaps so and we
shall never have a society where aggression against a fellow human being is
completely wiped out. But if we concede that this is the goal, then it seems to
me that we (i.e. everyone who recognizes this as a correct social norm) should
all work tirelessly towards this goal and not, contrary to our recognized
ideal, allow in our society a group of people recognized rights to
systematically aggress against other people, provided only that they carry the
badge of the State. This seems to me so contrary to the purpose of peaceful
human cooperation that I can only explain so many people believing this is because
most people go through a thorough process of thought-molding called the
government schooling system.
The libertarian
counter-argument then, correctly stated, would be as follows: »I recognize that
the initiation of aggression against people and their property is morally
wrong, but I nevertheless want to allow a certain group of people, whom we call
government, to have the right to aggress against any and all persons.« And it
gets even worse. In our age of democracy everyone is allowed to join
this group of people who have recognized rights of legal aggression. And since
it is always easier to confiscate what has been produced, rather than produce
it yourself, it is quite predictable that this group called government or
public employees will continually grow until most people are engaged in direct
or indirect expropriation and only a minority remains in production. These
kinds of conditions cannot last and always lead to conflict.
Let us draw an
analogy. We believe murder is wrong. But some say we must, in the name of
erradicating murder, allow a certain group of people, carrying the badge of the
State, recoginzed rights to murder others. What will happen is murderers will
join the legions of the State to be allowed to murder without repercussions.
And all people on the brink, considering murder, might also join the legions of
the State since it becomes allowable behavior, provided only you carry the
badge of the State. As more and more people engage in murder, this becomes
socially acceptable and society disintegrates.
By the same token,
we believe theft is wrong. But some say we must, in the name of eradicating
theft, allow a certain group of people, carrying the badge of the State,
recognized rights to steal from others. What will happen is robbers will join
the legions of the State to be allowed to steal without repercussions. And all
people on the brink, considering theft, might also join the legions of the
State since it becomes allowable behavior, provided only you carry the badge of
the State. As more and more people engage in theft, this becomes socially
acceptable and society disintegrates.
Matej Avsenak Ogorevc
Ni komentarjev:
Objavite komentar