Voluntaryist and Statist Compromise

July 4, 2010 by Bradley Jardis
Filed under: Question

Those of us who wish the violent monopoly known as the state would disappear are not going to see our goal met for what I believe is an extended amount of time.

Question: Would you as someone who believes in liberty (or as someone who agrees with the state) be willing to make the following compromise:

The state will be unable to enforce “crimes” against someone unless there is a bona fide complaining victim who was harmed or endangered. The punishment for endangering or harming someone will be twice that is currently is.

The state would still be allowed to use violence to enforce coercive taxation.

I’m curious to your thoughts/opinions.

Paul

Lol

To take a tongue and cheek post seriously … no, I certainly for one don't think you have a right to murder and rob on your land.

I mean, just because a person enters your land doesn't mean they lose all rights. They just have to abide by your rules if they want to stay.
bil

I already have that rule,without any society changes.Step on my property at your own risk.Keeps the neighbors off the lawn. —bil

PS-can you put a picture in a post? If so,how?
http://www.nolanchart.com/author677.html Chaz Munro

I suppose it's been a bit of a contentious point with me as to the whole "I shoot trespassers on sight" mindset.

Wouldn't you just hate it if one night you got shineola faced and just happened to walk onto your angry armed neighbor's property without even knowing that you had breached a boundary he had set up?

It's one thing to step onto a person's land with ill will in your heart and mayhem on your mind, I get that & fire away with my blessings if that is what you have to do. Yet is it something that a person should lose his/her life if they were just innocently collecting butterflies or sniffing the flowers?

The "Peaceful Society" needs a bit more peace in it's society, if nothing else than to more readily sort us out from the real aggressors and murder men we are attempting to *not* emulate. I'd hate to think a number of us could end up being just as bloodthirsty as the statist pricks we have won out over. That just won't do.
Paul

Personally, I believe grossly excessive, unnecessary violence is just as bad as aggressive violence. You have the right to do what's necessary for defense — to intentionally escalate clearly beyond what's necessary, however, is akin to aggression.

If someone's breaking into bil's house, I think shooting them would be well within his rights. If some ten year old puts a foot on his lawn accidentally, not so much (not that he'd do anything like that anyway, of course, just using extremes to illustrate the point).

And again we're into obscure hypotheticals. Will we ever learn?

But yeah, Chaz, I agree with your sentiment wholeheartedly. There's more to creating peace in society than just eschewing aggressive violence.
bil

I would hope you would see that my first comment was intentionally far out,and my second was a late-night joke with paul. After all,if I had a policy of shoot on sight,I would be in my cell at 5am,rather than posting here.That said,it was partially because of some other posts that I responded like that.There was an entire thread either here or on the forum side that got real deep into that very aspect.The theory must be able to exist in the real world,along side of the theories of those that think differantly.I like to borrow the words of the Who-meet the new boss-same as the old boss.That is what we have to watch for,as many of societies have found out. —bil
Gabe

Wow. I really regret the turn this discussion has taken.

Paul – the one thing I'd say is that you seem to be a bit more of an idealist than I. Yes, there's a good chance that things would move upwards towards a nice, reasonable harmony. However, I think there's also a good chance things might degrade towards protectionism, skyrocketing prices, racketeering, etc.

I guess you put more faith in humanity than I do.
Paul

I would hope you would see that my first comment was intentionally far out,and my second was a late-night joke with paul. After all,if I had a policy of shoot on sight,I would be in my cell at 5am,rather than posting here.That said,it was partially because of some other posts that I responded like that.There was an entire thread either here or on the forum side that got real deep into that very aspect.The theory must be able to exist in the real world,along side of the theories of those that think differantly.I like to borrow the words of the Who-meet the new boss-same as the old boss.That is what we have to watch for,as many of societies have found out.

Absolutely, I agree.

Wow. I really regret the turn this discussion has taken.

Why?

Paul – the one thing I’d say is that you seem to be a bit more of an idealist than I. Yes, there’s a good chance that things would move upwards towards a nice, reasonable harmony. However, I think there’s also a good chance things might degrade towards protectionism, skyrocketing prices, racketeering, etc.

Well, let's be thoughtful in how we transition, I say. We don't necessarily need to jump in to any particular solution with both feet. But, surely we can try some alternative solutions in certain areas, and see how it goes .

I guess you put more faith in humanity than I do.

Perhaps. In general, I guess I'd say I put more faith in average people, than politicians. The more we can move control to local communities, away from Washington, Concord, or even downtown, the better off I think we'll be.
Bradley Jardis

Just wanted to add… this is the 108'th comment on this blog.

Probably a Free Keene record setter.

Personally, I've enjoyed the conversation between Gabe, Paul, Chaz, and bil. Very insightful. All of you have excellent opinions on these very important matters.

Thank you.