Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected]
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
The issue with this, imo, is that it is a conflict of interest. The government creates the laws — the ultimate restrictions on what a populace can and can't do. What happens if the government gets perverted to the point where you no longer have a say in changing it?
It's about balance. Imbalanced power distribution will lead to abuse. The difference lies in if you want a true democracy, or an oligarchy. In the end, it is always the group that holds the majority power that holds the ultimate say. Would it not be better that this lies in the hands of the people than in the hands of a minority of elected officials?
Dude what the fuck? You do NOT want it to be legal for people to use violence to enforce their views on others. That's what "might makes right" is and it's how gangs are run. It's brutal. Every positive consequence you imagine will be completely dwarfed by the depths of human violence and depravity this would unleash.
The problem lies in the distribution of power. If you have the majority power held within a minority, then that is similar to gang rule, as you have pointed out. Now, if you spread power evenly, and equally, over all people so that there is no imbalance, that puts you on a path to equality. But one must, of course, never forget the saying: "democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding on what's for dinner".
That's how a lot of stuff works, true. I don't agree that can work with violence. I also don't appreciate the conceptual response to very practical questions.
I live in a peaceful society. I wouldn't want my neighbour to be able to use violence because my tree dropped it's leaves on his side of the lawn. I wouldn't want an alternate police force hired and paid by a group of white supremacists (current statistics aside) to enforce laws in a biased manner. Having other corporations able to use violence is an absolute dystopian nightmare and is 100% the cause of every dystopian fantasy world. If the government WASN'T empowered with violence then there is nothing to stop the above 3 scenarios. So I'm not sure what other "equalizing distribution" you're imagining and I'm not certain a better one exists.
I am open minded, which is why I asked those 3 very specific questions. If your have a better idea I'm all ears. If your idea is just to open up the floodgates and hope for the best because that will equalise access to violence and more equal is more better, then I will keep treating libertarian ideology as a threat to civilization. Mostly ideas that sound nice, but no practicable solutions that don't destroy society. Like communism.
What are you referring to?
I apologize if I have offended you — that wasn't my intent. What exactly do you mean by this?
This depends. A violent outcome need not be in response to an action, but it can stem from it. Laws carry with them the threat of force.
If a country allows for a citizens arrest, everyone holds within themselves the power of enforcing the law. Though you may be referring to the idea of paying for private police and leaving others without. If so, this is more of a question of positive and negative liberties. Having a public police force would be a positive liberty, imo — in that case, it potentially doesn't align with libertarianism, but that is very debatable.
Do note that if a corporation is not allowed to use violence, then that means that they cannot take it upon themselves to protect their property. Perhaps you think that that is how it should be?
I'm not sure I follow this point. I don't think that I have argued that the government shouldn't be allowed to use force — it wasn't my intent if my previous statements were interpreted in that way. The point that I'm trying to make is that the government should be kept in check. You have pointed out that threat of violence is what must be used to uphold the law. The only way for the people to keep the government in check is for the people to keep the government under threat of violence. If the distribution is just right, then no minority group in a democracy can hold the majority of the power.
Which 3 questions are you referring to?
I don't understand this point. Are you stating that you don't believe in individual equality?