150 sats \ 2 replies \ @Undisciplined 22 Feb \ on: 'There Should Be A Law' libertarian
That's so clearly what it is as to not even be a little bit controversial. The only exception being statements like "There should be a law preventing the government from..."
Well, it seems your position logically leads to the conclusion that there should be no laws except those that abolish any existing attempts at government - which would certainly be controversial.
Solutions should be local and government should not be so large and citizens so acclimated to its protection that the overarching habitual tendency is to ask it to solve problems, except, at best, as a last resort.
But that perspective doesn't apply as well when the founders are framing does it? Or in an early colony, early in one of the 50 experiments? Is it not relative, depending on the heirarchy, depending on the problem?
reply
it seems your position logically leads to the conclusion that there should be no laws except those that abolish any existing attempts at government
Not quite, although that is my view (depending on what we mean by "law"). We already have laws against almost every real crime; i.e. actions that have real victims. That means any clamoring for new laws is almost certainly "a lazy and selfish desire to have the force of government work on behalf of Citizen's personal preferences".
I freely grant that my views are highly controversial, but that particular point should not be.
reply