Don’t support laws you are not willing to kill to enforce
I posted this exact argument on this forum over 3 years ago, and really failed to get through to most of you. But now that a black man has died over a stupid cigarette tax, the Washington Post is using this argument as one of their headlines: www.washingtonpost.com/news/vo…
Amazing how things have changed over the years, isn't it? Now that somebody has died on video over some stupid law that New York health nuts implemented "for our own good," are you more willing to listen to the argument that government is violence?
When you vote in favor of laws, you are indirectly applying violence to enforcement of that law. If that law is not worth applying violence over, then you shouldn't vote in favor of that law. Once you realize that the violent force of government should only be used to stop violent force, you have stumbled upon the Non-Aggression Principle: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggr…
This principle is central to the ideals of liberty and libertarianism. If the citizens of New York understood these principles, Eric Garner would still be alive today.
Amazing how things have changed over the years, isn't it? Now that somebody has died on video over some stupid law that New York health nuts implemented "for our own good," are you more willing to listen to the argument that government is violence?
When you vote in favor of laws, you are indirectly applying violence to enforcement of that law. If that law is not worth applying violence over, then you shouldn't vote in favor of that law. Once you realize that the violent force of government should only be used to stop violent force, you have stumbled upon the Non-Aggression Principle: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggr…
This principle is central to the ideals of liberty and libertarianism. If the citizens of New York understood these principles, Eric Garner would still be alive today.
Comments161
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
This all sounds very Texan....
The problem with such a system is that it is always reactionary. Reactionary systems have the notable issue that they take time to respond to an issue. This is why, say, we have a law requiring smoke detectors. It's precautionary, not reactionary. It's patently ridiculous to suggest that we should be willing to kill over a law. This is why people don't take you seriously, because you capitalize on issue pandering (oh this *issue* wouldn't be an issue if only we did the things I say!) and then make extreme claims like we should be willing to kill over any potential law violation. It's absurdity. It makes it impossible to have a reasoned discussion with you. What you see as "being lost" on everyone is really just everyone looking at you like you left your fly down.
OP's point is to ask you if the accidental death of a petty criminal like Eric Garner is worth implementing a some detector law, not to say you must kill every law breaker.
I doubt that's the OPs point at all.
He's reminding everybody that passing laws isn't some kind of magical bandaid but is, even a tax or fine relies upon the threat of physical violence.
In addition to this we can also remind everybody that the enforcement of laws also require money, training, and the chilling effect of centralization.
Those are not trivial issues, and should not be used to solve problems that are trivial.
In addition to this we can also remind everybody that the enforcement of laws also require money, training, and the chilling effect of centralization.
Those are not trivial issues, and should not be used to solve problems that are trivial.
The alternative being?
Vaccines are preventative too, but we don't mandate them, and we do just fine with that liberty.
Vaccinations are mandatory for school attendance, which is also mandatory.
You really should make an effort to lean more about your country.
You really should make an effort to lean more about your country.
Not in every state. www.ncsl.org/research/health/s…
Note that the "philosophical exemption" pretty much takes any reason the parent wants to give.
Note that the "philosophical exemption" pretty much takes any reason the parent wants to give.
"philosophical exemption" is bullshit that mainly allows morons to pass on their stupidity. Mandatory or not, intelligent people don't choose to not vaccinate their kids.
Most parents who are against vaccines also rely on homeschooling which gets around this nicely.
Hence my comments about allowing idiots to perpetuate their idiocy.
Which is exactly why we don't need mandates for preventative action.
So you're saying all we need is an intelligent population?
View all replies
the only laws enforced I support are ones that likely would require violence to handle by default, like dealing with dangerous people, other than that I don't support any law that is against personal liberties.
When you vote in favor of laws...
Was this particular cigarette tax law actually voted on by the general public or was it just the lawmakers who voted to implement it?
Was this particular cigarette tax law actually voted on by the general public or was it just the lawmakers who voted to implement it?
Comment Flagged as Spam
Here in my state our lawmakers are looking to raise the gas tax again and we, the voting public, don't get to have a say about it. 
We had that recently attempted in my state just a month ago... the political's wanted to do it silently but a petition managed to get it on the ballot and we voted it down (like we voted down two OTHER taxes they wanted to put in) >_>
Comment Flagged as Spam
Actually, they're claiming the money will go to fight the potholes. 
The fact that there are violent governments does not prove that "government is violence." It's a logical fallacy; a hasty generalization to be more specific.
As to your other point, not all laws need to be enforced by violence since there are "scales" to the law. For instance, financial fraud is a serious offense that can have severe repercussions for its victims, but enforcing laws against financial fraud does not usually need or require violence. It makes no sense to say the only laws we should have should be those that we are willing to enforce with violence. It ignores, the fact that not all laws require violence to enforce. The violence factor does not make a law more or less valid. That, I believe, is a sweeping generalizaton.
As to your other point, not all laws need to be enforced by violence since there are "scales" to the law. For instance, financial fraud is a serious offense that can have severe repercussions for its victims, but enforcing laws against financial fraud does not usually need or require violence. It makes no sense to say the only laws we should have should be those that we are willing to enforce with violence. It ignores, the fact that not all laws require violence to enforce. The violence factor does not make a law more or less valid. That, I believe, is a sweeping generalizaton.