London’s Burning – Police Powers, The Army, The Left & Anarchy
A friend of mine came up to me earlier and said "Don't you think the police are being a bit heavy-handed?"
As a liberal (socially speaking), I seem to find that it's almost seen as my duty to criticise whatever the police do. People just expect me to. And normally, I'm more than willing to oblige. They definitely abuse their stop and search powers, they enforce a lot of laws which are not just, and they seem to spend more time pulling people over for not wearing seatbelts than they do catching rapists and killers.
Having said that, when it comes to these mindless acts of theft and vandalism, I can't criticise a robust approach. The police have a duty to protect people and their property, and that's exactly what they're doing. If they can prevent a shop being smashed up with a baton or a riot shield, it seems worth it to me. If people are willing to attack others and their property, the police are well within their ethical rights to use force to prevent those attacks.
In a free society, this would be an entirely legitimate function of the police force. The police are employed to serve and protect the public and that appears to be what they're doing, at great risk to themselves. I think that Cameron has made the right call in stepping up operations, and I hope that soon these mindless criminals will be brought to justice.
The Age of Consent & Libertarianism
Some libertarians believe that an arbitrary age of consent is not compatible with libertarian philosophy, because it doesn't respect the clear differences in young people's development, and as such 'punishes' the fast developers in order to protect the slow developers. This is the point at which I usually get Jefferson thrown at me to back up their argument:
"The man who would trade freedom for security deserves neither."
Thomas Jefferson
However, none of my opponents in these arguments seem to believe that children need no protection, they just can't put an arbitrary line on it. We all (I hope) accept that a newborn child is dependant upon those around it to feed it, to clothe it and to make sure it's warm, but where we differ is on our perception of how to protect a child as they are growing up.
Defending the Indefensible: An Open Challenge
As a libertarian, I often hear the cry that we 'play foul', we only use the examples which suit us in order to win popularity with the masses, whilst sweeping indefensible positions which we hold under the rug. People cry that libertarian philosophy requires one to defend that which would harm society at it's roots, and undermine order.
So, I'm going to do something which not many libertarian blogs do, and offer you the chance to have me defend the indefensible. If you post something in reply to this blog, which does not cause any harm to a living thing, I will argue the position to legalise it.
License
Calendar
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Mar | ||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
| 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
| 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
| 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
| 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | |
Recent Comments
- Luzdeiny on Are Travellers Not Natural Libertarians?
- Mike Hawes on Why an Annual Land Value Tax is an AWFUL Idea
- Henry Law on Why an Annual Land Value Tax is an AWFUL Idea
- Paul Lockett on Why an Annual Land Value Tax is an AWFUL Idea
- Fraggle on Why an Annual Land Value Tax is an AWFUL Idea