Comment: OK

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: The only problem I see with (see in situ)


So we can agree on a definition of freedom. I agree that the definition of freedom makes no distinction among sources of interference. I don't think that's a problem.

Your next assertion, however, does not follow. *If* the presence of a state produced an outcome of less human interference with my ability to pursue my desires, then that would be something to consider. Such a (dubious) possibility would not oblige me to support anything. Notice that I have modified your possibility. The idea of less *net* human interference with other humans pursuing their desires, does not make much sense as far as I can see. For example, if there is no interference for all but one individual, and that individual has no freedom whatsoever, what is the net interference?

And beyond that, some people have desires to interfere with others. It seems you get into an incalculable mess when you have to take into account the non-interference of the desires of psychopaths engendered by the state compared to the interference with virtuous desires---which I would like to maintain the prerogative to judge even if it be only for my own personal tally of net interference. In short, according to our own individual evaluation and wieghting of virtue, we'll get different net values.

A final (but important) point in this regard is that to assert I am obliged to support the state under your hypothesis is, it seems to me, to assume that freedom (or the largest possible level of liberty) is my *ultimate goal*. That is an incorrect assumption. There is a difference between thinking liberty (or even absolute freedom) is a good thing and having that as an ultimate goal that overrides everything else. Ultimate goals---like "I want to serve God" or "I want to help others be healthy"---vary wildly from individual to individual in both practical and theoretical terms (and even in meaning), and I don't think we have much hope of developing any agreement on the basis of such things.

But back to a solid point of agreement: Non state violence is not privileged over state violence for me. May I suggest that before we jump to a debate over the adoption of a state that we consider simply living in society?

We know what freedom is. The question is: If I am to agree to "give up" certain freedoms to "get along" with other people (in society), what should be the guidelines for that agreement?

As an aside, the existence of a state provides the following answer (as so clearly described by Hoppe): A certain group of individuals, having qualified as "members of the ruling class" according to the rules indicated in the constitution of the state, will have or claim monopoly authority to make final judgement and execute enforcement with respect to all disputes arising between individuals and also between individuals and the ruling class. This answer allows the possibility that the ruling class can seek out conflict with non-ruling individuals and then legitimately pass judgement against them. Thus, the ruling class has final say over all property, and life or death of all those subject to it. Hoppe asserts that no sane person would choose this answer.

Here are what I view as some reasonable guidelines:

0. If I give up a freedom, then others should agree to give up the same freedom.

1. Castle doctrine: Every individual should have a place to call his own and in which he is completely free from others.

Can we explicitly agree on those two? Could a significant number of people explicitly agree on those two?

And having gone down that road, let me suggest another road entirely: I think it's possible for certain groups of individuals to live in society with *complete* freedom. It all depends on their desires. If I have a desire to see others have their own spaces, then not only will I not violate those spaces or execute violence against those people in their spaces, I will work to help them have spaces *and* defend them. Thus, if we have a common desire to live together peacefully with each other and defend ourselves from outside aggressors, why can't we do it? What I referred to in my post above as restraint or discipline might also be called virtue. If my desires are guided by virtue---if my freedoms are suitably limited thereby---why should they even be limited by any explicit agreement.

This reminds me of a comment by Bill Buppert: I don't have anything against police or government. I just have no use for them.

It also reminds me of the book title "Everything I Want To Do Is Illegal" by Joel Salatin.