Tuesday, October 14, 2014

Keep good rules; chuck the rest

Keep good rules; chuck the rest

(My Clovis News Journal column for September 12, 2014.)

Contrary to what many seem to believe, libertarians are not against rules. In fact, they are defined by adherence to one rule in particular: the Zero Aggression Principle. It simply states: "No human being has the right, under ANY circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, nor to advocate or delegate its initiation." This basically means "Don't start violence by throwing the first punch, or by sending someone else to throw the first punch."

Live by that rule and you are a libertarian whether you know it or not; don't live by it and you aren't libertarian no matter what you say.

Natural Law aligns flawlessly with the Zero Aggression Principle, including the necessity of respecting the property rights of others.

Other rules are helpful for self preservation.

Following the dosage rules for medication is smart. Rules for proper food preparation or keeping your water safe to drink are necessary. Following rules for safe gun handling helps you survive. Some people don't obey good rules and suffer the consequences.

Still other rules have evolved concerning customary behavior. Pausing at intersections and driving on the right side of the road (where this is the custom) are examples of this. These would be smart things to do regardless of laws dictating them, simply because everyone has come to expect this, and refusing to cooperate will needlessly endanger your life and the lives of innocent people. Of course, these rules vary from place to place, so don't fall into the trap of believing they are universal like Natural Law. Even when these rules find their way into laws, some people will refuse to follow these rules and will cause harm.

The legitimate rules, which are sometimes reflected in invented, statutory law, are the ones which would survive and be followed by most people without being enforced, or even written down. If you don't follow them, you'll probably suffer.

Most libertarians are fine with these rules, and are simply against arbitrary, unnecessary, or harmful rules.

Bad rules would soon die out without armed enforcement keeping them propped up. Rules like coming to a complete stop at stop signs, when no one really believes it is essential to driving safely; or having a license plate or a drivers license. Or arbitrary speed limits. Speed limits are silly, since even the law tosses them aside on a whim; thus "driving too fast for conditions", even when well below the "speed limit".

Other arbitrary, unnecessary or harmful rules would include those regulating the owning and carrying of weapons, rather than the aggressive use of those weapons. Or rules imposing taxation. Or compulsory school attendance.

Keep the good rules; scrap the rest.


Comments on The Crimes of Officer Brent Aguilar- UPDATED

I rarely do this, but you really should go back and read the comments posted on The Crimes of Clovis' Officer Brent Aguilar, and the pass given by copsuckers.

It shows just how hard statists will try to justify their superstitious beliefs. I'll admit, the guy is good at it.

Funny, though, how many things I bring up that he conveniently ignores- skipping right over that to try another direction.

And, am I mistaken, or did the sorry little butt nugget just threaten me?

I think you'll enjoy reading through the comments, and keep checking back. He may not be done.

UPDATED- He's still at it and digging himself even deeper, and getting more desperate.


Can't fight reason? Just nuke 'em.

I just finished reading an excellent book, The Market for Liberty, which came highly recommended by one of the commenters here- I'll probably have more to say about it soon.

But, in reading how the authors say a free society would spread, because the States around the world couldn't compete with it, makes me wonder something inconvenient which the authors seem to have ignored.

Would governments join together in an attempt to attack and destroy a free society which was embarrassing them and attracting "their people" and businesses? Rather than trying to compete, and locking down their "borders" and outlawing emigration, would they simply nuke the free area to "solve" the problem?

I'm afraid I believe they just might do it, since there is no other way they could compete.

That doesn't mean they would necessarily be successful, since a free society would probably be filled to the brim with people who were obsessive about defense and weaponry- which no one would be able to criminalize.

And, in such a scenario, "winning" doesn't mean the aggressors were right and that statism is moral or ethical. It just means they were stronger or lucky. Just like any murderer who manages to kill his victim.

But, it's something I have seen in my own life: when statists can't win with reason, they resort quickly to force, which they always believe they have a right to initiate against anyone who doesn't agree with them. It's why they, while ridiculous, are dangerous and need to be watched.