Search Ideas
915 ideas match your query.:
So children already have freedom of thought? You originally said that children only have freedom of thought when their minds have reached a certain level of maturity; that this was the purpose of school in the first place. That doesn't fit together.
Forcing someone to think is impossible. The student remains free in his thoughts.
(Kant)
We need to distinguish between freedom of choice and freedom of thought.
School serves to educate students to have freedom of thought. This is achieved by restricting freedom of choice.
(Kant)
That is not what freedom means.
Freedom does not consist in the guarantee of certain thoughts or scope for action.
Roughly speaking, freedom is when you are left alone by others when you want to be left alone.
If you are sent to school against your will, you are not free. School is a forced program.
Forcing children to be free is a contradiction in terms.
Freedom is achieved when the mind reaches a certain level of intellectual maturity: when it thinks for itself.
This is the purpose of compulsory education: to liberate children.
(Kant)
Dispute resolution, lawmaking, and personal defense are only proper in the hands of government.
Government creates consent. Without government, there is no consent.
[…] I disagree that international law and agreements are such a shining example for having anarchy on a local scale. The defense of my rights from someone who lives in my neighborhood shouldn’t rely on the extradition agreements between our two protection agencies, there should be clearly established rules about how what rights of action we have and don’t have, and it should be clearly established how we can resolve disputes about those issues. And if my neighbors all have different agencies, then it cannot be practically clear to me what all of those actions and resolutions are.
Governments often wage war against each other.
One illustration will be sufficient [to show that a society made of competing governments cannot work]: suppose Mr. Smith, a customer of [arbitration service] A, suspects that his next-door neighbor, Mr. Jones, a customer of [arbitration service] B, has robbed him; a squad of Police A proceeds to Mr. Jones’ house and is met at the door by a squad of Police B, who declare that they do not accept the validity of Mr. Smith’s complaint and do not recognize the authority of [arbitration service] A. What happens then? You take it from there.
As I have written before, Rand “implies that they could never resolve their conflict – or worse, that they would be in a perpetual state of war – because they don’t have a shared jurisdiction, an underlying legal framework.”
KodoKB points out a risk of abuse:
The use of retaliatory force has an objective risk of being misapplied and therefore of violating the rights of others.
Related: #4
Defensive force and security services are productive endeavors.
Retaliatory force is only part thereof, and defense involves the employment of scarce resources, thus economic principles apply. (Logan Chipkin)
[There is a] difference between the functions of government and the functions of industry, between force and production.
Rand says ancaps make the same mistake as “modern statists” – they don’t see this difference.
If someone decides to make a website that only supports a certain browser, or to only allow certain encoding methods in their phonelines, while that may exclude me from their services it does not violate my rights. If someone decides that they can steal my IP [intellectual property] and they have an agency that supports this view, they are violating my rights and are being protected in doing so.
[I]t is the need of objective laws and of an arbiter for honest disagreements among men that necessitates the establishment of a government.
In other words, having multiple governments in a single territory would not result in having objective laws.
Reddit user KodoKB explains why:
[T]here could be thousands of slight (or not so slight) variations between the different agencies. Because there are so many different definitions of what’s allowed, the law then would not be objective in the sense that it’s not practically possible for an individual to know what actions are permissible and which aren’t.