A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre

[hazek]

This excerpt is one of the best things I have read in a long while:

http://economicsandliberty.wordpress.com/a-way-to-be-free/?like=1&_wpnonce=2edf2fd66d

I wish I didn't need to pay some publisher $30 to read the whole thing but this excerpt just blew me away. It echoed thoughts precisely how I think about freedom and getting to a free society and right & wrong and good & bad and it gives me even more confirmation that my goal approach to freedom(goal: to live in a society that has the freedom to maximize it's potential) is the only way to really figure out the true requirements for reaching it and not some mythical universal rule of right or wrong i.e. morality.

 

Please give it a read and share your thoughts.

[1715020895]

1715020895

[1715020895]

1715020895

[1715020895]

1715020895

[Hawker]

I believe I have stated the position of my adversaries fairly.  There is invariably the same oversight.  If we have a government, it will be human beings who will be hired to restrain the evil in others.  Who are these persons who will be hired, either by popularity contests or by direct application?  They will be just as human and as much disposed toward evil as those to be restrained.

That is simply untrue. It fails at 3 levels:
- Whether its Genghiz Khan or Captain John Hawkins, human history shows that if a weak society exists, a large organised society will come along and enslave it.  Having your own democratic state is preferable to that.  Ask any Afghan or Iraqi...heck ask any Palestinian or Jew what happens when you are don't have an army that can protect you.
- Within any society, there is a small minority whose anti-social behaviour requires the rest of us to spend money on police, courts and jails.  They are more disposed towards evil than the rest of us.  To make an argument that ignores this reality is sophistry.
- The very concept of liberty only exists in societies where there is a state that guarantees life and property.  If you had to worry about being killed or robbed the way a Chinese or Russian subject does, you wouldn't care about liberty.  you'd only care about security and corruption.  The very fact that you care about liberty shows you live in a free society with proper laws.  I know this is a stretch but its close to what we all know from experience.

Having made his bogus assertions, LeFevre then proceeds to base his entire argument on the idea that democratic government is not perfect.  So what?  Its preferable to being ruled by foreign invaders and local criminals.  My car isn't perfect but I don't want to go barefoot.  Likewise, my government isn't perfect but I don't want live without things like a free market and property rights.

[frisco2]

Anarchism can not work. One drop of grease oil would spoil a bucket of honey.

[hashman]

I believe I have stated the position of my adversaries fairly.  There is invariably the same oversight.  If we have a government, it will be human beings who will be hired to restrain the evil in others.  Who are these persons who will be hired, either by popularity contests or by direct application?  They will be just as human and as much disposed toward evil as those to be restrained.

That is simply untrue. It fails at 3 levels:
- Whether its Genghiz Khan or Captain John Hawkins, human history shows that if a weak society exists, a large organised society will come along and enslave it.  Having your own democratic state is preferable to that.  Ask any Afghan or Iraqi...heck ask any Palestinian or Jew what happens when you are don't have an army that can protect you.

Ask who what?  What are you referring to as a large organized society and why?   

- Within any society, there is a small minority whose anti-social behaviour requires the rest of us to spend money on police, courts and jails.  They are more disposed towards evil than the rest of us.  To make an argument that ignores this reality is sophistry.

True, and to make an argument that this small minority of anti-social behavior will be absent in your police/army/armed gang member/prison guard/executive branch of "organized society" would be still more dangerous sophistry. 

- The very concept of liberty only exists in societies where there is a state that guarantees life and property.  If you had to worry about being killed or robbed the way a Chinese or Russian subject does, you wouldn't care about liberty.  you'd only care about security and corruption.  The very fact that you care about liberty shows you live in a free society with proper laws.  I know this is a stretch but its close to what we all know from experience.

Just because the tax regimes known as PRC and the Russian Federation have many fewer political prisoners (in absolute number and per capita) and in many ways less central authoritarian control than representatives of the United States Corp. does not mean they are not subject to the same security flaw:  some humans are given weapons and unchecked "authority" (the opportunity to make mistakes) and suffering the consequences.  And lets be clear about these consequences: human suffering from all parties involved, loss of efficiency in endeavors of all participants, reduction of chances of survival of humanity as hoped for by participants.           

Having made his bogus assertions, LeFevre then proceeds to base his entire argument on the idea that democratic government is not perfect.  So what?  Its preferable to being ruled by foreign invaders and local criminals.  My car isn't perfect but I don't want to go barefoot.  Likewise, my government isn't perfect but I don't want live without things like a free market and property rights.

What bogus assertion exactly? 
Yeah, LeFevre fails to point out that government can mean something as simple as a father telling his child not to shit on the carpet.  He needs to be a little more clear about the problem he is trying to address:  power corrupts.  Milgram's experiment.  The founding fathers of the USA v0 had some of this in mind with a construction of a government of limited power.   Fortunately  the time is ripe for a little more of this intelligence to be used for governments of all levels          

[epbaha]

This excerpt is one of the best things I have read in a long while:

http://economicsandliberty.wordpress.com/a-way-to-be-free/?like=1&_wpnonce=2edf2fd66d

I wish I didn't need to pay some publisher $30 to read the whole thing

If you haven't already bought it, pay $30 (http://goo.gl/rGnwL).  After reading, sell it for $30 on Amazon or on the forums here.  Your financial loss will be...

Amazon fees plus $3 shipping

$3 shipping if you can sell on the forums.

[Hawker]

I believe I have stated the position of my adversaries fairly.  There is invariably the same oversight.  If we have a government, it will be human beings who will be hired to restrain the evil in others.  Who are these persons who will be hired, either by popularity contests or by direct application?  They will be just as human and as much disposed toward evil as those to be restrained.

That is simply untrue. It fails at 3 levels:
- Whether its Genghiz Khan or Captain John Hawkins, human history shows that if a weak society exists, a large organised society will come along and enslave it.  Having your own democratic state is preferable to that.  Ask any Afghan or Iraqi...heck ask any Palestinian or Jew what happens when you are don't have an army that can protect you.

Ask who what?  What are you referring to as a large organized society and why?   

Question is very simple; what happens when you have the misfortune to live in a society without a state to protect you from bad guys?  Whether the answer you get is genocide, expropriation, slavery or what, its unpleasant compared to being in a society where you are free behind a decent military and judicial system.

[hazek]

I believe I have stated the position of my adversaries fairly.  There is invariably the same oversight.  If we have a government, it will be human beings who will be hired to restrain the evil in others.  Who are these persons who will be hired, either by popularity contests or by direct application?  They will be just as human and as much disposed toward evil as those to be restrained.

That is simply untrue. It fails at 3 levels:
- Whether its Genghiz Khan or Captain John Hawkins, human history shows that if a weak society exists, a large organised society will come along and enslave it.  Having your own democratic state is preferable to that.  Ask any Afghan or Iraqi...heck ask any Palestinian or Jew what happens when you are don't have an army that can protect you.

Ask who what?  What are you referring to as a large organized society and why?    

Question is very simple; what happens when you have the misfortune to live in a society without a state to protect you from bad guys?  Whether the answer you get is genocide, expropriation, slavery or what, its unpleasant compared to being in a society where you are free behind a decent military and judicial system.

Well as I'm not an idiot or a pussy and because I value personal freedom above all else I rather take door nr. 1 and find out what the future will bring instead of door nr. 2 where I have people robbing me and forcing me to obey their rules under threat of violence so that they can protect me from maybe getting robbed or attacked by someone else.

[Hawker]

...snip...

Well as I'm not an idiot or a pussy and because I value personal freedom above all else I rather take door nr. 1 and find out what the future will bring instead of door nr. 2 where I have people robbing me and forcing me to obey their rules under threat of violence so that they can protect me from maybe getting robbed or attacked by someone else.

As I said "Whether its Genghiz Khan or Captain John Hawkins, human history shows that if a weak society exists, a large organised society will come along and enslave it.  Having your own democratic state is preferable to that."  In this case, no state is door 2 while a democratic state is the ideal option for door 1.

LeFevre had the absurd view that if you are kidnapped, its wrong to damage the ropes of your abductor as they are not your ropes.  His fantasies about a world where there is no state to protect you from abduction and about being a well behaved captive really strike me as being more of a sexual than a political thing. 

[justusranvier]

Question is very simple; what happens when you have the misfortune to live in a society without a state to protect you from bad guys?  Whether the answer you get is genocide, expropriation, slavery or what, its unpleasant compared to being in a society where you are free behind a decent military and judicial system.

It seems to be a bit of a false dichotomy.

You appear to be comparing the reality of what life is like with a state: genocide, expropriation, slavery, no protection from the bad guys (the worst ones get government jobs) with an imaginary utopian state that doesn't actually exist (free with a decent military and judicial system).

[Hawker]

Question is very simple; what happens when you have the misfortune to live in a society without a state to protect you from bad guys?  Whether the answer you get is genocide, expropriation, slavery or what, its unpleasant compared to being in a society where you are free behind a decent military and judicial system.

It seems to be a bit of a false dichotomy.

You appear to be comparing the reality of what life is like with a state: genocide, expropriation, slavery, no protection from the bad guys (the worst ones get government jobs) with an imaginary utopian state that doesn't actually exist (free with a decent military and judicial system).

If you live in a state that practices genocide, expropriation, slavery and gives no protection from the bad guys, you have my sympathy.  Where is this hell hole you are from?

[justusranvier]

If you live in a state that practices genocide, expropriation, slavery and gives no protection from the bad guys, you have my sympathy.  Where is this hell hole you are from?

Can you list one that doesn't do any of those things?

[Hawker]

If you live in a state that practices genocide, expropriation, slavery and gives no protection from the bad guys, you have my sympathy.  Where is this hell hole you are from?

Can you list one that doesn't do any of those things?

All states in EU, the US, Australia...there are very few bad democratic states.  Now please do reply about which you are from.

[justusranvier]

All states in EU, the US, Australia...

The people living in Iraq, owners and customers of Rawesome Foods, Michael Paxton, clients of MF Global, and Guantanamo detainees would disagree with your assertion, just to name a few.

[Hawker]

All states in EU, the US, Australia...

The people living in Iraq, owners and customers of Rawesome Foods, Michael Paxton, clients of MF Global, and Guantanamo detainees would disagree with your assertion, just to name a few.

Are you saying we are not perfect?  And that if we are not perfect, then we have to give up our lives in the most peaceful prosperous societies in history?

My car isn't perfect.  On your logic, I should walk barefoot everywhere.

[justusranvier]

Are you saying we are not perfect?  And that if we are not perfect, then we have to give up our lives in the most peaceful prosperous societies in history?

My car isn't perfect.  On your logic, I should walk barefoot everywhere.

I'm saying that our current societies are incredibly violent, but by social convention we all pretend not to see the violence and agree not to talk about it.

People who talk about the supposed horrors of a stateless society are engaging in psychological projection and are merely describing the features of the state system which are not politically correct to discuss openly.

[Hawker]

Are you saying we are not perfect?  And that if we are not perfect, then we have to give up our lives in the most peaceful prosperous societies in history?

My car isn't perfect.  On your logic, I should walk barefoot everywhere.

I'm saying that our current societies are incredibly violent, but by social convention we all pretend not to see the violence and agree not to talk about it.

People who talk about the supposed horrors of a stateless society are engaging in psychological projection and are merely describing the features of the state system which are not politically correct to discuss openly.

Projection? You are making an assertion without offering any evidence for it.  Facts please.  Please point to a stateless society with a standard of living comparable to the UK, a murder rate comparable to the UK and a life expectancy comparable to the UK. 

I notice you still haven't said what hell hole you are from.  I'm curious to find out this place you live with its genocide and slavery.

[hazek]

If you live in a state that practices genocide, expropriation, slavery and gives no protection from the bad guys, you have my sympathy.  Where is this hell hole you are from?

Can you list one that doesn't do any of those things?

All states in EU, the US, Australia...there are very few bad democratic states.  Now please do reply about which you are from.

Oh the ignorance.   The US for example has the largest prison population on the planet, half of it for non violent breaking of arbitrary rules about what one can do with their body. In any of the listed states you are robbed of between 35-60% of everything you earn in a year. Is that what you call protection?

Btw you make a non sequitur when you think I know or read and now support and hold as the truth everything and anything LeFevre ever wrote. I don't. But I do agree 100% with what you can find at the link in the OP. For example LeFevre believed in pacifism, I do not.

[Hawker]

If you live in a state that practices genocide, expropriation, slavery and gives no protection from the bad guys, you have my sympathy.  Where is this hell hole you are from?

Can you list one that doesn't do any of those things?

All states in EU, the US, Australia...there are very few bad democratic states.  Now please do reply about which you are from.

Oh the ignorance.   The US for example has the largest prison population on the planet, half of it for non violent breaking of arbitrary rules about what one can do with their body. In any of the listed states you are robbed of between 35-60% of everything you earn in a year.

Btw you make a non sequitur when you think I know or read and now support and hold as the truth everything and anything LeFevre ever wrote. I don't. But I do agree 100% with what you can find at the link in the OP. For example LeFevre believed in pacifism, I do not.

LeFevre believed there should be no state.  That means no private property, no right to life and basically being at the mercy of those who do have states.  Its not a good alternative to living in a democracy.

If you are unhappy about the US prison population, organise with like minded people and change it.  Without wanting to sound nasty, its not a problem with democracy that the American public are so enthusiastic about locking people up; its a problem with your society.  Change people's minds and the prison population will fall.

[hazek]

If you live in a state that practices genocide, expropriation, slavery and gives no protection from the bad guys, you have my sympathy.  Where is this hell hole you are from?

Can you list one that doesn't do any of those things?

All states in EU, the US, Australia...there are very few bad democratic states.  Now please do reply about which you are from.

Oh the ignorance.   The US for example has the largest prison population on the planet, half of it for non violent breaking of arbitrary rules about what one can do with their body. In any of the listed states you are robbed of between 35-60% of everything you earn in a year.

Btw you make a non sequitur when you think I know or read and now support and hold as the truth everything and anything LeFevre ever wrote. I don't. But I do agree 100% with what you can find at the link in the OP. For example LeFevre believed in pacifism, I do not.

LeFevre believed there should be no state.  

I don't care what he believed, it's a non sequitur that I have to in order to 100% agree with what he wrote at the link in the OP.

[hazek]

its not a problem with democracy that the American public are so enthusiastic about locking people up; its a problem with your society.  Change people's minds and the prison population will fall.

Riiiiiight, it's not the state, no no, people are simply "enthusiastic" about trying to resists and dying pointlessly when a gang of heavily armed men decides to throw someone in a cage.