"Michael S. Lorrey" <mlorrey@datamann.com> wrote:
>> Samantha Atkins wrote:
>
>>> Dan Fabulich wrote:
> <snip>
>
>> Well, I am not sure I agree it "requires everyone believing in its
>> rightness and voting that way".
>Neither do I. So long as self defense is acceptable, but initiation >of force is unacceptable, self defense will act as a natural >governor on the initiation of force. Government is thus not needed >for police protection. Note that in many instances of police >strikes, crime tends to DROP, because criminals are more afraid of >citizens taking things into their own hands than the possibility of >police cruelty.
Being a dedicated non-libertarian, I usually lurk and bite my tongue through these exchanges, but this time I really can't resist offering a different perspective. These scenarios seem to me to be totally unrealistic. Sure, you may be a bad mofo now, but what about when you're 80? When I'm aged and/or infirm (still a very real possibility, regretably) will I still be even capable of handling a .357? I'll probably just want to call a well trained police force (which, by the way, I think I could make a strong case should remain part of the government function). Even if I somehow retain my ability to defend myself from ne'er-do-wells, or always have others to do it for me, into the foreseeable future there will continue to exist people for one reason or other on the margins. I don't really want to construct a society that says, "You're on you own."
Also, my bs detector started to tingle when it was suggested that crime declines during a police strike. That would be an interesting phenomenon, but does not seem to be the norm by any means. Please check out the summary of relevant studies at http://www.ncjrs.org/works/chapter8.htm
Regards - Pat Inniss
http://home.sprynet.com/~inniss/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:34 MDT