There is a deep difference between those who lean hard to the freedom-ward, and those who don't on this issue. What is that distinction?
What is the moral difference between agents of the state and non-agent citizens?
Statists of various stripes suggest that the state is positioned well to make intelligent decisions about how the subject are allowed to live, and therefore that agents of the state should be treated morally differently than the garden-variety subject of the state.
Libertarians of various stripes argue instead that the state is almost never likely to make impartial decisions, and therefore that agents of the state should be treated morally identically to ordinary citizens.
This difference is perhaps most noticeable in the issue of gun control.
The statist suggests that the police and perhaps some specific deputized citizens should be able to protect everyone against violence, and that others have no such right...and certainly not via firearms.
The libertarian, contrarily, suggests that it is a moral failing for a person to go unarmed. As a citizen, it is my right and my duty to protect myself, my family, and perhaps my community. Only the incompetent and newly arrived have any business depending on the generosity of the community to protect them while not shouldering their own portion of the burden.
This is my favorite pro-gun argument...not intended to convince anyone...but my friend Paul Hsieh , philosopher, and general smart guy brought it up many years ago when my travel prohibited me from carrying. Your moral status within the world shifts when you carry a lethal weapon on your person. You can no longer be a child or a sheep, nor can you allow your passions to carry you off. You must become an adult; a sheepdog. And doing it of your own volition is particularly praiseworthy. And hopefully you don't condescend too much to the sheep and children you end up protecting.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
The dynamic here seems to be that, in our general democracy, statists group together and vote in their plans. Freedom lovers talk a good game, but how do you convince the median voter not to loot the upper quintile?
Democracy tends to erode into crass statism, while non-democratic systems are unstable.
The statist suggests that the police and perhaps some specific deputized citizens should be able to protect everyone against violence, and that others have no such right...and certainly not via firearms.
[Stephen Pinker] identifies a number of forces that were key factors in curbing mankind's capacity for inhumanity: the slow emergence of states capable of playing the role of Hobbes's "Leviathan"
Pinker has distinguished between cultures that require face-saving and personal violence (e.g. ghettos--don't snitch!) and cultures where people expect larger entities to handle the violence. Does Pinker's idea that Leviathan is one key to less violence make sense?
Meh,
Yahbut....
For the 20th century, the state WAS the problem. Killed so many of its own people, and other people that while the day to day violence might be down, it appears to be true that any measure to reduce state power is worth it.
Aretae,
The state is always a big source of violent conflict as it reflects human flaws. The question is whether there is less TOTAL violence in a region when there is a source of overwhelming force.
You read Pinker's book; do his numbers not add up?
Libertarians do not consider it a moral failing to live unarmed. By this logic, children should either be kept under close supervision at all times or they should pack. You are a proponent of free range kids, but I've not read your post on arming your children. I have that you kept your kids out of the 20% of Chicago where Leviathan is not the principle source of violence ... which is pretty normal thinking for libertarians.
Post a Comment