Interesting viewpoing, Starchild. I may have given this example
before, if so, here it goes again: This is a case one of my clients
worked on a couple of years ago. A rich couple hired a young man to
take care of their house while they were on vacation. While in the
house, the young man overused drugs, grabbed a gun from a night stand
and killed himself. A huge trial ensued to determine who was to blame
for the young man's death -- the owners of the house (they had cause
to know the young man was "unstable" and the gun was not locked
away), the gun manufacturer (they "provided" the weapon), or the
supplier of the drugs (apparently the drugs were a contributing
factor); the young man seemed to have been left out. You are saying
that we should focus on the ones that do the deeds (office holders),
rather than the ones who contribute to the deeds (voters). I will go
along with that! (I do not know what the outcome of the trial was;
so I cannot tell you whether the jury would have agreed with you or
not.)
Marcy
The ultimate originator of the sick-leave mandate (Prop. F on
the 2006
ballot) was a group called the Coalition for Paid Sick Days. The
measure was put on the ballot by San Francisco Supervisors Ross
Mirkarimi, Chris Daly, Sophie Maxwell and Tom Ammiano. Did the
people
who voted for these Supervisors do so in the knowledge that they
would
take this action, or have any confidence that they would take such
an
action, at the time they voted? Probably not. Someone could have
voted
for Mirkarimi, Daly, Maxwell, or Ammiano for completely different
reasons, as the lesser of two or more evils, and been totally
opposed
to this particular legislation. I know that was the case with at
least
one libertarian who voted for Chris Daly.
Say that you desperately need someone to take care of your
house while
you go on vacation, and you have the choice of several people to
choose
for this responsibility, none of whom you completely trust. As it
turns
out, the person you select ends up trashing your living room. Who
is
responsible for the damage, you or him? In hindsight you may be
guilty
of bad judgment, but the person who physically caused the damage is
the
person responsible. Wouldn't you agree?
Being "wrongheaded" is not sufficient to make one morally
responsible
for an action committed by someone else. If we say it is, then we
are
creating "thought crimes."
Love & liberty,
<<< starchild >>>
> Hi Starchild,
>
> We are in complete agreement about the virtues of fighting back
from
> a position of calm strength, seeking justice, holding accountable
> those whom we feel have wronged us; and viewed in such light,
these
> actions may not necessarily constitute victimhood (in the sense
that
> I was using the word). Thus, the majority of the residents of San
> Francisco, for example, placed a specific set of Supervisors in
City
> Hall. These elected representatives of the people fought hard to
seek
> justice for the average worker, who starting this February will
> receive mandated sick leave from their employers. Who is the
> ultimate originator of said sick-leave mandate? The government?
The
> Supervisors? The people who elected said Supervisors? Sounds to me
> that the employers are not victims of government wrongdoing, but
of
> their fellow citizens' wrongheadedness!
>
> So, again, I say let us all follow the example of your actions and
> attend City meetings, speak your piece in talk shows, etc.
>
> Marcy
>
> >
> > Hi Marcy,
> >
> > Thanks for your kind words. Perhaps our difference of opinion
> may stem
> > from different senses of what it means to be a "victim?" By
> portraying
> > the people as victims of government, I am not suggesting that
they
> (we)
> > are helpless, merely that they (we) have been (and are being)
> wronged.
> > I believe victims should fight back and seek justice. Not that I
> > automatically oppose sentiments like mercy and empathy, or a
> Gandhian
> > calmness toward oppressors, but it's better if such noble-
> spiritedness
> > comes from a place of strength, not from having no other
options.
> >
> > It seems to me that to say "the oppressive government is us"
> lets
> > those who are actively doing the oppressing off the hook.
Already
> too
> > many State employees are inclined to take the attitude "I'm just
> doing
> > my job." I consider that unacceptable, just as it was at
Nuremberg.
> > Imagine a robber assaulting you and then when caught telling the
> > police, "it's really my family's fault, they wanted me to do
it" --
> no,
> > it's really *your* fault, *you did it*. I believe making
everyone
> > accountable would result in no one being accountable. Kind of a
> tragedy
> > of the moral commons.
> >
> > Love & liberty,
> > <<< starchild >>>
> >
> >
> >
> > > Hi Starchild,
> > >
> > > As always, a thoughtful analysis from you. Thank you. My
response
> > > remains, "yes", government does reflect the will of the
people.
> > > Perhaps the essence of our argument exists in your closing
> sentence
> > > regarding blaming the victims. If we see ourselves as
victims, we
> > > will, of course, need disembodied entities such as "the
> government,"
> > > to single out as the cause for our woes. Yes, you are
correct, we
> > > have laws that determine who can and cannot vote; thus, I am
> speaking
> > > of the lawful electorate. Yes, you are correct, we have
> > > the "ignorance" factor; and, I might add, the lazy factor (I
did
> not
> > > get my voting materials in the mail, so I did not know there
was
> an
> > > election going on); thus, the resulting "government"
accurately
> > > reflects these factors. In summary, "Every Nation has the
> government
> > > it deserves."
> > >
> > > BTW, Starchild, I see a disconnect between your words and your
> > > actions. Your analysis seems to be based on victimhood;
whereas
> your
> > > actions are definitely "can do!"(running for office,
> participating in
> > > debates, attending local meetings, speaking out). So, are you
> saying
> > > you can influence events, whereas some cannot?
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Marcy
> > >
> > > --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Starchild <sfdreamer@>
wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Marcy,
> > > >
> > > > If we were living in something approaching a direct
> > > democracy, under a
> > > > small government, where ordinary people literally voted on
all
> > > > significant policies and procedures, I think we might live
in a
> > > society
> > > > where it could be said with some degree of accuracy that
> government
> > > is
> > > > "only a reflection of 'the people's' wish." Even then of
course
> an
> > > > astute observer might point out that any large group of
people
> is
> > > going
> > > > to have *many* wishes, often contradictory, and not just
one.
> > > >
> > > > But under the current system, the gulf between what
> > > governments do and
> > > > what the people they claim jurisdiction over want is vast.
> > > Virtually
> > > > all current governments consist of privileged, self-serving
and
> > > > unaccountable subsets of humanity whose actions do not
> accurately
> > > > reflect even the will of a majority, let alone that of the
> entire
> > > > population subject to their bidding.
> > > >
> > > > To start with, many people are directly disenfranchised and
> > > have no
> > > > voice in the process by which government representatives are
> > > selected.
> > > > In the United States this group includes "undocumented"
> residents
> > > who
> > > > don't have government's permission to be in the area
(reportedly
> > > about
> > > > 11 million), people incarcerated or on probation or parole
for
> > > various
> > > > victimless "crimes" or denied the vote for past felonies
> (probably
> > > at
> > > > least another several million more -- see
> > > > Victimless Crimes), and people under
the
> age
> > > of
> > > > 18 who would be capable of making voter choices and wish to
do
> so
> > > (who
> > > > knows how many millions). Among those who *are* allowed to
vote,
> > > many
> > > > (probably at least hundreds of thousands of voters each
year)
> have
> > > > their ballots improperly voided, discarded, miscounted, do
not
> > > receive
> > > > their voting materials, are sent to the wrong polling place,
> and so
> > > > forth due to voter fraud and government incompetence.
> > > >
> > > > Those constitute the directly disenfranchised. Then there
are
> > > the
> > > > indirectly disenfranchised. In the U.S. this includes vast
> numbers
> > > of
> > > > American adults who live in non-competitive districts which
have
> > > been
> > > > gerrymandered so that the incumbent is virtually guaranteed
> > > reelection,
> > > > with the U.S. Congress (for instance) have a lower turnover
rate
> > > than
> > > > the old Soviet Politburo, so that they have no actual
choice in
> who
> > > > represents them. Some representatives are so secure in their
> sense
> > > of
> > > > entitlement under the system that they refuse to even debate
> their
> > > > ballot-qualified challengers (e.g. Nancy Pelosi right here
> where we
> > > > live). The indirectly disenfranchised also include many
people
> who
> > > vote
> > > > for alternative candidates and parties, which due to the
lack of
> > > > proportional representation, are denied any seats in
legislative
> > > bodies
> > > > unless they win a plurality of votes in a particular
district,
> thus
> > > > disenfranchising those who supported them.
> > > >
> > > > Then there is the "power corrupts" factor. Representatives
> > > frequently
> > > > lie to their constituents and win office on false promises,
and
> > > there
> > > > is no mechanism to prevent them from doing so. They say what
> they
> > > think
> > > > people want to hear, and then most often do what serves
their
> own
> > > > interests or those of their (establishment) political
parties or
> > > their
> > > > campaign contributors, rather than what reflects the wishes
of
> > > their
> > > > constituents.
> > > >
> > > > Then there is the ignorance factor. Even in cases where
> > > legislators
> > > > and elected officials are relatively honest and attempt to
vote
> as
> > > > their constituents wish, the people are poorly informed due
to
> (a)
> > > > government secrecy, (b) deliberate misinformation by those
in
> > > power,
> > > > (c) lack of accountability to the public, and (d) the sheer
> > > > complication and vastness of government. In all likelihood
if
> > > members
> > > > of the public knew what was really going on, many more of
them
> > > would
> > > > oppose many aspects of government that they now support. So
> their
> > > > current choices cannot truly be said to be reflective of
their
> most
> > > > fundamental wishes.
> > > >
> > > > Then there is the unelected bureaucracy factor. Even when
> > > legislators
> > > > are honest and attempt to vote as people wish, and the
wishes of
> > > the
> > > > public are based on relatively complete and accurate
information
> > > about
> > > > the government decision in question (and honestly, how
often are
> > > both
> > > > of those things true?), the laws and policies themselves are
> left
> > > to
> > > > largely unelected bureaucrats. Most of these folks have only
> small
> > > > accountability to the elected leaders, and operate mainly
out of
> > > > self-interest and inertia. Even when they carry out their
jobs
> and
> > > > attempt to follow directions diligently, governments are
> frequently
> > > so
> > > > vast and complex that directives and intentions get
> misinterpreted
> > > as
> > > > they are passed along to those who are supposed to carry
them
> out.
> > > So
> > > > there is little guarantee that laws and policies will be
> enacted by
> > > the
> > > > legislators in the ways that the legislators envisioned.
> > > >
> > > > Then there is the "unintended consequences" factor. Even
when
> > > (a)
> > > > legislators are honest and faithful to their constituents,
(b)
> the
> > > > constituents are adequately informed, (c) the bureaucrats
make a
> > > good
> > > > faith attempt to carry out the laws and policies as
intended,
> and
> > > (d)
> > > > these attempts are not stymied by the sheer scope and
> complexity of
> > > it
> > > > all, the nature of economics and human action is such that
> > > centrally
> > > > planned edicts will often have unintended consequences,
> sometimes
> > > > achieving precisely the opposite of the desired effect. In
such
> > > cases
> > > > it can perhaps be said that the public is in fact
responsible.
> But
> > > > whereas an individual or a smaller and less bureaucratic
> > > organization
> > > > might be relatively quick to change a policy that was
producing
> > > > unintended and undesired effects, governments are typically
very
> > > slow
> > > > to do so. Therefore, when government policies continue well
> beyond
> > > the
> > > > point where it is obvious to most people who study the
matters
> that
> > > > they are producing results contrary to their intended
purposes,
> > > such
> > > > policies can no longer really be said to reflect the wishes
of
> the
> > > > public.
> > > >
> > > > In conclusion, I think there is no way in hell that we can
> > > accurately
> > > > say government reflects the wishes of the people. I think
that
> to
> > > say
> > > > so is to blame the victims.
> > > >
> > > > Love & liberty,
> > > > <<< starchild >>>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Michael,
> > > > >
> > > > > I second Don in thanking you for the article. However, I
> cannot
> > > help
> > > > > but once again challenge the idea of "the government"
being
> the
> > > gun
> > > > > in the room, sice "the government" is only a reflection
> of "the
> > > > > people's" wish. I had a long discussion today with one of
my
> > > > > clients, who is running for office, and called to run by
me
> his
> > > idea
> > > > > of "mandating" solar panels in each and every home. We are
> running
> > > > > out of oil, right? Our economy is based on oil, right? So,
> before
> > > our
> > > > > economy collapses....etc. So, multiply this one person
> by "x", and
> > > > > you will have "the government."
> > > > >
> > > > > Have fun tomorrow, you all! (I will be at my computer
> cranking out
> > > > > Forms W-2 for my clients, as mandated by "we the people".)
> > > > >
> > > > > Marcy
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In lpsf-discuss@...m, defliberty@ wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dr. Edelstein,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thank you for sending the article, "The Gun in the
Room."
> I've
> > > read
> > > > > the article and look forward to the discussion of this
> article and
> > > > > other topics at tomorrow evening's Libertarian Chat.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > All the best,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Don Fields
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: dredelstein@
> > > > > > To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > Cc: sfdreamer@; defliberty@
> > > > > > Sent: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 12:37 PM
> > > > > > Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Libertarian Chat Friday
(1/12/07)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "The Gun in the Room" is a terrific article sent to us
by
> > > Lawrence
> > > > > Samuels. I'd like to add a discussion of it to the agenda
for
> our
> > > > > Libertarian Chat tomorrow.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.lewrockwell.com/molyneux/molyneux29.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best, Michael
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The Gun in the Room
> > > > > > by Stefan Molyneux
> > > > > > "Put down the gun, then weâll talk."
> > > > > > One of the most difficult â" and essential â"
challenges
> > > faced by
> > > > > libertarians is the constant need to point out "the gun
in the
> > > room."
> > > > > In political debates, it can be very hard to cut through
the
> > > endless
> > > > > windy abstractions that are used to cover up the basic
fact
> that
> > > the
> > > > > government uses guns to force people to do what they do
not
> want
> > > to
> > > > > do, or prevent them from doing what they do want to do.
> Listening
> > > to
> > > > > non-libertarians, I often wish I had a "euphemism
umbrella" to
> > > ward
> > > > > off the continual oily drizzle of words and phrases
designed
> to
> > > > > obscure the simple reality of state violence. We hear
nonstop
> > > > > nonsense about the "social good," the "redistribution of
> income,"
> > > > > the "education of children" and so on â" endless
attempts to
> bury
> > > > > the naked barrel of the state in a mountain of syrupy
> metaphors.
> > > > > > It is a wearying but essential task to keep reminding
people
> > > that
> > > > > the state is nothing but an agency of violence. When
someone
> talks
> > > > > about "the welfare state helping the poor," we must point
out
> the
> > > gun
> > > > > in the room. When someone opposes the decriminalization of
> > > marijuana,
> > > > > we must point out the gun in the room. When someone
supports
> the
> > > > > reduction of taxes, we must point out the gun in the room
â"
> > > even if
> > > > > one bullet has been taken out.
> > > > > > So much political language is designed to obscure the
simple
> > > > > reality of state violence that libertarianism sometimes
has to
> > > sound
> > > > > like a broken record. We must, however, continue to peel
back
> the
> > > > > euphemisms to reveal the socially-sanctioned brutality at
the
> > > root of
> > > > > some of our most embedded social institutions.
> > > > > > I was recently involved in a debate with a woman about
> public
> > > > > schools. Naturally, she came up with reason after reason
as
> to why
> > > > > public schools were beneficial, how wonderful they were
for
> > > > > underprivileged children, how essential they were for
social
> > > > > stability etc etc. Each of these points â" and many more
â"
> > > could
> > > > > have consumed hour upon hour of back and forth, and would
have
> > > > > required extensive research and complicated philosophical
> > > reasoning.
> > > > > But there was really no need for any of that â" all I
had to
> do
> > > was
> > > > > keep saying:
> > > > > > "The issue is not whether public schools are good or
bad,
> but
> > > > > rather whether I am allowed to disagree with you without
> getting
> > > > > shot."
> > > > > > Most political debates really are that simple. People
> donât
> > > get
> > > > > into violent debates about which restaurant is best
because
> the
> > > state
> > > > > doesnât impose one restaurant on everyone â" and shoot
> those
> > > > > trying to set up competing restaurants. The truth is that
I
> > > > > couldnât care less about this womanâs views on
education
> â"
> > > just
> > > > > as she couldnât care less about my views â" but we are
> forced
> > > to
> > > > > debate because we are not allowed to hold opposing views
> without
> > > one
> > > > > of us getting shot. That was the essence of our debate,
and as
> > > long
> > > > > as it remained unacknowledged, we werenât going to get
> anywhere.
> > > > > > Hereâs another example. A listener to my "Freedomain
> Radio"
> > > show
> > > > > posted the following comment on the message board:
> > > > > > If you say "Government A doesnât work," you are really
> saying
> > > > > that the way that individuals in that society are
interacting
> is
> > > > > lacking in some way. There are many threads in this forum
that
> > > > > address the real debate. This threadâs counterarguments
all
> > > focus
> > > > > on government vs. free market society. The rules defining
a
> free
> > > > > market are all agreed upon interactions at some level,
just
> as a
> > > > > government is. Donât debate that a government is using
guns
> to
> > > > > force others, when itâs really individuals with guns,
> instead
> > > show
> > > > > how the other way will have less guns forcing others or
how
> those
> > > > > guns could force others in a more beneficial way.
> > > > > > I responded in this manner:
> > > > > > But â" and Iâm sorry if I misunderstand you â"
> government is
> > > > > force, so Iâm not sure how to interpret your paragraph.
Let
> me
> > > > > substitute another use of force to show my confusion:
> > > > > > "If you say that rape doesnât work you are really
saying
> that
> > > the
> > > > > way that individuals in that society are interacting is
> lacking in
> > > > > some way. There are many threads in this forum that
address
> the
> > > real
> > > > > debate. This threadâs counterarguments all focus on
rape vs.
> > > > > dating. The rules defining dating are all agreed upon
> > > interactions at
> > > > > some level, just as rape is. Donât debate that a group
of
> > > rapists
> > > > > is forcing others, when itâs really individual rapists,
> instead
> > > > > show how the other way will have fewer rapists forcing
others
> or
> > > how
> > > > > those rapists could force others in a more beneficial
way."
> > > > > > Do you see my confusion?
> > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > It is a very helpful sign for the future of society that
> these
> > > > > euphemisms exist â" in fact, I would not believe in the
moral
> > > > > superiority of a stateless society if these euphemisms
did not
> > > exist!
> > > > > If, every time I pointed out to people that their
political
> > > positions
> > > > > all required that I get shot or arrested, they just
> > > growled: "Sure, I
> > > > > got no problem with that â" in fact, if you keep
disagreeing
> > > with me
> > > > > Iâm going to shoot you myself!" â" then, I would find
it
> very
> > > hard
> > > > > to argue for a stateless society!
> > > > > > In more than 20 years of debating these issues, though,
> Iâve
> > > > > never met a single soul who wants to either shoot me
himself
> or
> > > have
> > > > > someone else shoot me. I take enormous solace in this
fact,
> > > because
> > > > > it explains exactly why these euphemisms are so essential
to
> the
> > > > > maintenance and increase of state power.
> > > > > > The reason that euphemisms are constantly used to
> obscure "the
> > > gun
> > > > > in the room" is the simple fact that people donât like
> violence
> > > > > very much. Most people will do almost anything to avoid a
> violent
> > > > > situation. Even the most bloodthirsty supporter of the
Iraq
> > > invasion
> > > > > would have a hard time justifying the proposition that
> anybody who
> > > > > opposed the invasion should be shot â" because it was to
> defend
> > > such
> > > > > freedoms that Iraq was supposed to have been invaded in
the
> first
> > > > > place! But how can I have the right to oppose the
invasion of
> > > Iraq if
> > > > > I am forced to pay for it through taxation? Surely that
is a
> > > > > ridiculous contradiction, like arguing that a man has a
right
> to
> > > free
> > > > > speech, and also that he should be arrested for speaking
his
> > > mind. If
> > > > > I have the right to oppose the invasion, surely I cannot
be
> > > forced to
> > > > > fund it. If I am forced to fund it, then any right I have
> > > to "oppose"
> > > > > it is purely imaginary.
> > > > > > In essence, then, all libertarian arguments come down
to one
> > > > > single, simple statement:
> > > > > > "Put down the gun, then weâll talk."
> > > > > > This is the core morality of both libertarianism and
> > > civilization.
> > > > > Civilized people do not shoot each other when they
disagree
> â"
> > > > > decent people do not wave guns in each otherâs faces and
> demand
> > > > > submission or blood. Political leaders know this very well
> â" I
> > > > > would say better than many libertarians do â" and so
> constantly
> > > > > obscure the violence of their actions and laws with mealy-
> mouthed
> > > and
> > > > > euphemistic weasel words. Soldiers arenât murdered,
> they "fall."
> > > > > Iraq wasnât invaded, but "liberated." Politicians
arenât
> our
> > > > > political masters, they are "civil servants," and so on
and
> on.
> > > > > > Although libertarianism is generally considered a
radical
> > > doctrine,
> > > > > the primary task of the libertarian is to continually
> reinforce
> > > the
> > > > > basic reality that almost everyone already is a
libertarian.
> If we
> > > > > simply keep asking people if they are willing to shoot
others
> in
> > > > > order to get their way, we can very quickly convince them
that
> > > > > libertarianism is not an abstract, radical or fringe
> philosophy,
> > > but
> > > > > rather a simple description of the principles by which
they
> > > already
> > > > > live their lives. If you get fired, do you think that you
> should
> > > hold
> > > > > your manager hostage until he gives you back your job? No?
> Then
> > > you
> > > > > already hold a libertarian position on unions, tariffs,
and
> > > corporate
> > > > > subsidies. If you find your teenage son in your basement
> smoking
> > > > > marijuana, would you shoot him? No? Then you already hold
a
> > > > > libertarian position on the drug laws. Should those who
oppose
> > > war be
> > > > > shot for their beliefs? No? Then you already hold a
> libertarian
> > > > > position with regards to taxation.
> > > > > > Like the scientific method, libertarianismâs greatest
> > > strength is
> > > > > its uncompromising simplicity. The enforcement of property
> rights
> > > > > leads to an immensely complex economy, but the morality of
> > > property
> > > > > rights is very simple â" would you shoot a man in order
to
> steal
> > > his
> > > > > property? The same complexity arises from the simple and
> universal
> > > > > application of the non-aggression principle. Itâs so
easy
> to get
> > > > > lost in the beguiling complexities and forget to keep
> enunciating
> > > the
> > > > > basic principles.
> > > > > > So forget about esoteric details. Forget about the
history
> of
> > > the
> > > > > Fed and the economics of the minimum wage. Just keep
pointing
> out
> > > the
> > > > > gun in the room, over and over, until the world finally
starts
> > > awake
> > > > > and drops it in horror and loathing.
> > > > > > November 16, 2006
> > > > > > Stefan Molyneux [send him mail] has been an actor,
comedian,
> > > gold-
> > > > > panner, graduate student, and software entrepreneur. His
first
> > > novel,
> > > > > Revolutions was published in 2004, and he maintains a
blog.
> > > Listen to
> > > > > his podcast, which you can get by clicking here â" or,
you
> like
> > > > > iTunes better, you can click here. For more on DROs,
please
> see my
> > > > > archives. He is host of Freedomain Radio.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > __________________________________________________________
> > > > > __
> > > > > > Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free
> safety and
> > > > > security tools, free access to millions of high-quality
videos