Post by Don on Apr 2, 2017 17:53:58 GMT -5
Again, I specifically recognize the distinction between civil society and coercive governing structures and refuse to conflate them. Government <> society; Political obligation <> social obligation; community <> state.
Srly? When you get together with a group of friends and decide to go out for pizza, you vote and make everybody eat the same thing on their pizza? Or do you let small groups form voluntarily, so that some split a veggie, and some split a meat-lovers, and Contrary Don can order a meatball sub without being ostracized, incarcerated, fined or murdered?
In a social setting, everyone can have whatever they want on their pizza, or have a meatball sub instead. If society ran by "majority rules," then when you and your friends went out for pizza, you'd vote on toppings and FORCE everyone to eat what the group chose.
Voluntary interaction can only be "trumped" by the use of force. There's government, right there, no kid gloves, no "better good." In the final analysis, the choice between civil society and government rule is the choice between the right to choose and no choice at all.
Conflate civil behavior and the initiation of force at your own risk. The long-term cost is the subjugation of civil interaction to the whims of the ruling class.
Of course, there's the idea that things that don't need to be regulated at the Federal level, are done at the State level. And therefore the choices made in California don't affect the choices in Utah. And of course, even counties can have individual laws.
But more and more, we're federalizing these things.
Opposition to the initiation of force is not opposition to contract resolution or the use of force in defense, or even the recovery of judgments. The Law as a system of justice is logically (and to me, morally) defensible. The Law as an excuse to control free people in their peaceful voluntary interaction with others is not.