Not "the state uses force to keep us all safe." The state is force. Sure there is force that is not the state, but there is no part of the state that is not force.
Statists have a conception that a "monopoly on the legitimate use of force" (THEIR definition of the state! Even they admit state=force) means that state will expand to fill the entire "force" part of the Venn diagram.
Problem is, the state leaks; force gets spilled everywhere. Force metastasizes outside of the original limits of force and displaces perfectly effective voluntary action. There is essentially no check on this expansion, unless voters choose voluntarism over coercion.
Which is why this HuffPo piece is so disturbing. The use of force, of sickening excessive force, is expanding rapidly. But you people all keep voting for it, and then saying, "Oh, we didn't mean THAT much force! Oh, no, no, no." And then you vote for it again.
Let's make this simple.
The state is force.
If you vote to expand the state, you are expanding force.
If you want less force, you have to want less state.
It's just physics.
2 comments:
So Steve Pinker argues there is now less violence than ever before in human history. One of the main reasons for this, he states, is the growth of the state. His argument never made intuitive sense to me, and now you've helped me understand why. Keep posting on this topic, you've done some of your best on it.
I find it odd to refer to a Radley Balko piece as a HuffPo editorial simply because it is in the HuffPo
Post a Comment