Dan Fabulich wrote:
> Michael Lorrey wrote:
Well, anyone who voluntarily lives in a PPF territory that recognizes no
right-to-carry is basically agreeing to become governed in my book, because they
Only those who insist that their PPA recognize their right to self defense at any
> >> This approach is innovative, and one for which I don't have an effective
> >> response. My first thought would be that, by this definition, all of the
> >> nations of the world that aren't currently at war are operating under a
> >> PPF... I'm not sure what consequences this might have on the argument.
> >> Additionally, what if my right to protect myself is worth more to me than
> >> the protection a PPF can provide? Presumably, then, the PPF would have to
> >> pay me to leave. If so, how could a market mechanism be developed by which
> >> a fair price could be determined?
> >Not necessarily. It can pay those who wish to be able to defend themselves
> >right to do so provided they also act as undercover deputized security
> >personnel, responsible to defend others in a criminal or other security
> >situation. This is essentially what is happening in states with
> >concealed weapons laws, as private citizens carrying concealed weapons act
> as an
> >implied and unknown threat against potential criminals, thus acting to deter
> >crime against all, and benefitting the PPF. Under the US Constitution, all
> >individuals between the ages of 18 and 40 are members of the militia who
> can be
> >drawn on by local law enforcement personnel as deputies to form posse's
> for the
> >purpose of fighting local crime. These are two examples of self defense in
> a PPF
> This seems like a fine idea, (presuming I didn't mind, in this example,)
> but doesn't the concept of a PPF sort of undermine the whole point of
> anarcho-capitalism? I mean, this is my real problem/question. If there's
> only one PPF making the laws, how can we expect the laws to be formed
> fairly under legal market principles? Isn't the PPF a government at this
> point? (This was Nozick's argument.)
Well, anyone who voluntarily lives in a PPF territory that recognizes no right-to-carry is basically agreeing to become governed in my book, because theyrecognize that they are slaves to the group, or are at least brainwashed into such groupthink. Such people really are a threat to sustainable ungoverned society, they may not actively want a government, but their own mental laziness and irresponsibility imply a need for one.
Only those who insist that their PPA recognize their right to self defense at anylevel will remain ungoverned. Its a basic choice of being a man or a mouse.
At present day, it is the case of the PPF with a general no-right-to-carry weapons laws pervading the land. With the expansion of the Brady Bill to all rifles and shotguns, not just handguns, and the FBI fighting to keep the names on record, we now have a national gun registration system in fact, if not in name. We are fighting annual battles up here against Massachusetts transplants who want to change our gun laws into big city style laws.
Here in NH, when a bomb threat was made in a State building a month ago, the Feds came in and are subpoenaing anyone who has ever written a letter to the editor or a letter to the governor stating anti-government views, and making them give fingerprint, hair, blood, and urine samples. Rather than issuing regular subppoenas, which require a local judge to approve, they issued Secret Grand Jury Subpoenas, which do not require a judge to approve. These subpoenas are supposed to be voted on by a majority of a grand jury, and issued by the prosecutor, but the prosecutor is refusing to disclose whether the grand jury voted or not. Additionally, they are also issuing such ID and DNA subpoenas to anyone who has talked to the dissidents in the past month.
I am happy to say that the ACLU is sticking up for a couple of these people who are fighting the subpoenas, one of the few times I've approved of a case of theirs.