"I don't need you, John"

I took the title to this post from a comment thread at No Treason. The thread, is from a June 18 post titled “Galt or Roark?," and though this post is not necessarily an expansion on the “Galt or Roark?” post, the above title/comment, which has stayed in my mind, is closely related to what follows, and can be tied to the comment thread of the No Treason post.

Garth, at the blog Musings from America’s Outback, has been noting Leonard’s, at the blog Unruled, thoughts on anarchy.  Garth’s most recent post, titled “Anarchy vs. Minarchy: Legitimacy litmus test," refers to Leonard’s most recent post titled “How to Analyze Anarchy."

Both Garth’s, and Leonard’s, posts are considering anarchy with a emphasis on protection agencies.  An emphasis that is struck in many considerations of this subject, as if protection is the keystone to the success, or failure, of an an-cap society.  But is it?

Consider the State’s protection agencies.  Do these protection agencies, the police, the military, and what not, actually protect you?  Though they advertise on the sides of their vehicles, and their websites, “To Protect, and To Serve,” these agencies do not protect you, they, for the most part, investigate actions that have already harmed you.  The State controlled protection agencies rarely protect you from murder, burglary, or bodily injury, they just step in, after the fact, providing you with a false sense of security because they are “on the case.”

Now, to the comment "I don’t need you, John," and hopefully an articulated point.  The individual fear of harm, or loss of property, appears to be the overriding reason for a perceived need for protection agencies, and, for individuals to join one protection agency versus another protection agency.  To form a group.  Though I understand, and accept, that a sizable percentage of individuals will feel a need to join a protection agency, a protection agency is not the basis from which individual freedom, individual sovereignty, an an-cap society, will grow.  This doesn’t mean that private protection agencies will not necessarily be a part of a truly free way of living, it only means that not all individuals will need to join a protection agency, a group, to be part of a truly free way of living.

"I don’t need you, John," is not a misanthropic statement, it is a statement of independence and assurance of an individual’s place in the world at large.  A world where groups, erroneously, want you to believe that there is only safety in numbers.

Posted by on 09/05 at 06:20 AM

  1. "I don’t need you, John,” is not a misanthropic statement, it is a statement of independence and assurance of an individual’s place in the world at large.  A world where groups, erroneously, want you to believe that there is only safety in numbers.

    Be careful there, John. Keep up this attitude and you’ll find yourself labeled an “Armadillo."

    Posted by RKN  on  09/05  at  11:51 AM

  2. After reading the origins of the term, “Armadillo,” and the discussions surrounding the term, I wouldn’t necessarily object.  Well, at least as long as I was not “required” to join an Armadillo society for supposed mutual benefit, or take it as a label.

    Posted by  on  09/06  at  08:31 AM

  3. I need Courtney Love. And she needs me, poor girl.

    “

    Posted by J. "In Love with Love" Sabotta  on  09/06  at  09:07 AM

  4. Consider the State’s protection agencies.  Do these protection agencies, the police, the military, and what not, actually protect you?  Though they advertise on the sides of their vehicles, and their websites, “To Protect, and To Serve,” these agencies do not protect you, they, for the most part, investigate actions that have already harmed you.  The State controlled protection agencies rarely protect you from murder, burglary, or bodily injury, they just step in, after the fact, providing you with a false sense of security because they are “on the case.”

    I guess the degree to which you think you’re being protected, depends altogether on how you think tha application of penalties for certain actions is effective in preventing crime.

    As for the concept of their being safety in numbers, all things being equal, a group is more powerful in terms of protection than are individuals, if we assume that the members of the group are trustwaorthy.  As to how effective they are in the whole, well, that would seem to depend on the degree to which the group is *empowered* to protect it’s members.

    Posted by Bithead  on  09/06  at  02:19 PM

  5. Oh, I agree entirely.  In fact the issue of the “armadillo” is where Nozick went wrong, IMO.  The thing is, everyone understands the threat that individuals present.  It’s not very great, we can largely deal with it without much help, and it doesn’t vary much in anarchy or otherwise.  It is only groups that threaten to violate rights systematically.  “Protection agencies” as such are worth talking about for that reason.  A 1 in 1000 chance of individual predation is just as dangerous as a 1 in a million chance of a state (or protection agency) starting a war. 

    Posted by Leonard  on  09/06  at  04:08 PM

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:


Next entry: Son of a Beach

Previous entry: Expanding on a Patio Conversation

<< Back to main