Hi dave, I think Jim S's post, to which I replied, is a good start:
<<"...I thought all this was in relation to what a Libertarian would do. If someone put a cannon in his yard that was pointed at my house, my first inclination would NOT be to call the cops, or petition the city council to enact a law prohibiting cannons pointed at houses.
Seems to me that a few things would have to be done first, like finding out if the "cannon" could actually be used to cause harm (what if it is a ceramic lawn ornament?), what my neighbor's reason is for putting there and aiming it at me, and finding out if he realizes that his action is causing me concern. Perhaps my concern would THEN escalate, if it proved to be a real threat, and further actions would be called for. ...">>>>
My answer to the question would be a question --
"How do nations deal with such situations?"
---Discussions, arbitration, force.
I think perhaps there is a hidden assumption in your friend's question. That assumption is that a large & powerful gvrnmnt will provide equal protection for citizens, and will be fair and just in using its power.
---Having an intrusive & powerful gvrnmnt to deal with disputes between citizens doesn't guarantee justice or safety.
It's interesting to me that it is often the case that examples of extreme & unlikely situations are used as justification for large & intrusive gvrnmnt. Very few neighbors are pointing cannon at me, but the gvrnmnt is excessively intruding in our lives in 1000s of ways every day.
regards,
diana |
