When some people keep telling the same — very good — absurd old joke about absolute relativity, the same discourse about the limit of discourse, then insist on the joke being taken seriously and the discourse being held sacred, refusing to acknowledge the limitations of its own simple meaning, and waste their lives repeating it and commenting it, the obvious conclusion is that the joke is on them.( Collapse )
In his latest article on immigration, A Simple Libertarian Argument Against Unrestricted Immigration and Open Borders, LewRockwell.com, September 1, 2005 (see also this followup), Stephan Kinsella admits that though the government is illegitimate, there are things that are more or less good for it to do, and that in particular it must use its force for various things it has claimed monopoly upon, instead of being passive, until it eventually recedes. He even admits the criterion according to which the state does best when it acts according to the preferences of those it has robbed from their property.
Well, the government has claimed monopoly upon war with foreign dictators and terrorists. Waging war with foreign dictators and terrorists is a legitimate activity, that many americans -- including the majority of voters -- prefer to inactivity. Of course, it would be better if government would let us do the war efficiently, instead of wasting lives and resources doing it badly. But it's still better that it should do things badly rather than badly fail to do them. Clearly, Kinsella uses the same argument as we do, albeit in a different instance. Could he possibly begin to see the light?