Wednesday, August 08, 2007

Who's Your Daddy?

The state is not my daddy.

Who's your daddy?

Should thinking about breaking the law be illegal?
If a father disciplines for foolish rules then he is provoking his children to anger. We call that child abuse. The state has extended its sphere of influence too far. I'm angry, and I know you are too.

What does "backing it up with force" represent?

Under a rule of law all participants agree not to encroach on others' rights. If anyone violates this non-aggression principle, they step out from under the protection of the law and they are outlaws. They enjoy neither protection of their life their property or their liberty.

The criminal in this case may make an appeal to the court to come back under the protection of the law by paying restitution to the injured party. Thus they are restored.

This and the enforcement of voluntarily agreed upon contracts is the full extent of the law.

If once the law has been perverted in such a way that it allows one person, or agency, to take from another and give to whom they please, the protections of natural law are nullified and the law has done that which it was designed to prevent.

Redistribution of wealth falls into this category, as does awarding privilege to large corporations, etc.. In any way that the law goes beyond protection of rights and enforcement of contracts it is perverted, and then who can know it?

The lack of predictability in regards to the law disturbs the transactions made voluntarily amongst individuals. How can they agree upon a contract if they do not know it will be enforced? How can they agree upon a price if they do not know whether the state will impose a price control on one of the factors of their production?

Backing the law up with force actually means the restraint on force - lawful behavior - is forgone by the perpetrator, and he brings the violence upon himself. The state wields this sword for us collectively so as to prevent abuse or misunderstandings by individuals - to give the accused the benefit of the doubt and a way of being restored. It is actually a manifestation of grace.

But if the law be perverted, the grace becomes absent, and all that it represents is violence to all, on the behalf of the state itself instead of on behalf of the individuals supposedly under the protection of the law.

For a much more eloquent discussion of these principles see Bastiat's The Law, available at The Library of Economics and Liberty.

Nathanael Snow

2 comments:

Jeff said...

The state did pay for my raising...

But in any case, there are areas of sanctioned aggression. Namely, when both parties are aware of the consequences and choose to willfully engage in the action.

The UFC, the IFL, my karate class, or war. Both sides know whats up, and they engage anyway.

BTW, I got knocked out last night at karate. It was the strangest feeling. If it's never happened to anyone that reads this, you should try it. It will make you a better person.

"If once the law has been perverted in such a way that it allows one person, or agency, to take from another and give to whom they please, the protections of natural law are nullified and the law has done that which it was designed to prevent."

That rascal, Robin Hood, and his fanciful tales filling our youths' minds with hopes of redistribution and getting something for nothing.

Wait, I got scholarships. Does this count too?

Hehe, we're gonna tag team that philosophy professor in the fall. :-)

Juris Naturalist said...

Jeff,

We need to talk more about how the state assisted in raising you.

Scholarships should be voluntary donations.

I still struggle with the way I have taken from the state willingly. One defense is that the money is fungible. The other is to never give money to a tyrant, and never refuse it from him.

I don't buy either. But I wouldn't shut off these forms of assistance from others until the church had supplanted it as a provider.

Thanks for reading. You should check out how I'm pissing off the indians at God's Politics.