Why we must violate rightsSubmitted by Faithkills on Tue, 06/10/2014 - 17:36
3$BILL has made a great deal of a silly argument that free law must perforce violate rights.
The short answer is, duh.
Liberty isn't a panacea, and the NAP isn't a magic wand.
In short principles aren't Gods.
In a free or capitalist society with capitalist law there will occasionally be rights violations done to individuals. Occasionally an innocent will be wrongly sanctioned. There is no way around this.
3$BILL is probably getting excited right now. But he will be disappointed as usual.
"AHAH!" he says, "You admit a capitalist society must violate rights!"
But this is the sad and pathetic argument of the statist 'educated' in government schools.
What is the fallacy?
Simple: The claim here is that since there is no perfection, then the status quo is justified. This is the appeal to perfection or a general case of false dichotomy or the excluded middle.
True, it must be admitted.
We live on earth and not heaven. I do solemnly admit to this. There is no perfection here.
The NAP is not a spangly vibranium alloy shield which makes us impervious to having our rights violated, or even more unfortunately, inadvertently violating someone elses' rights.
The problem can be taken in pieces, and simply.
Logically any entity which must violate rights to exist, is corrupted, and cannot claim to protect rights.
With free law mistakes will be made. But there will be no claim of immunity or special status.
Logically you may only delegate your own rights and responsibilities to someone else. You may be sure someone is a criminal. You may act. But if you are wrong, you can't hold up your badge and say "OMG Officer Safety!! FIRST DUTY IS GETTING HOME! I'M A HERO! PROTECT THE TROOPS!"
No. You screw up, and you're responsible.
And that is the only thing you can delegate. You can delegate your moral right and responsibility but you still are responsible. When you hire someone to act in your name, if they mess up it's on you both.
You cannot delegate authority and not responsibility. They are not separable.
Because there will be no state shield from responsibility, there will be fewer mistakes. Which leads us to the consequentialist side of the discussion.
Socialized law must provide an inferior product to capitalist law.
Socialist anything must provide inferior product to capitalist anything.
Rule #1: No exceptions.
Rule #2: If you think there is an exception, see Rule #1.
Rule #3: Profit.
Once you have a socialized monopoly there are only a few ways to increase 'profit'. Reduce quality, increase price, or create problems that only you are allowed to solve.
Historically we know all three strategies are almost always employed and employed progressively more over time.
While in theory one could innovate, this never happens. I think it's human nature.
Only when the only option to increase revenue is competition does competition happen.
So what the discussion really is about is what would provide a better outcome.
Socialist law which has every incentive to provide a poor product because people have to pay anyway.
Or capitalist law which has every incentive to provide a service people want to pay for, more than any other option.
Both will violate rights.
Why? Because we are human and flawed, even by our own standards.
But the utopian bends the standards, and claims rights violated in the name of the state are somehow not violations. We non utopians engage in no such ethical masturbation. We admit there will be violations, and in facing this truth, and not evading responsibility ourselves, not excusing ourselves, we excuse no one else. Without such excuse the violations are much less common.
Evil excused is evil proliferated.
A minarchist may argue there is something about provision of law that makes it special, just like a left progressive argues there is something about health care or education that makes it special.
But this case needs to be made.
And spoiler alert: They are both wrong.
To me the minarchist case is only even remotely plausible in the case of existing aggressor states, that you may need a socialized military, if for the time being.
I don't buy this either.
But it at least stands the initial smell test.
But anyone who has been remotely involved in the domestic 'justice' system which has millions of innocent people in cages at the cost of hundreds of billions of dollars and who can with a straight face say 'our rights are being protected' by this socialist legal system.. well honestly I don't believe you really believe that.
No one can be that stupid.