2 things I want to address here: 1. absolutism 2. respect and authority. An absolutist (depending on their philosophical views, of course) might declare that initiating force against someone is always wrong no matter what. They might even argue this ought to be the foundation for law. But its not a necessary element to figuring out why things happen or ones demonstrated preferences. Lots of thinkers consider it superfluous and often an over simplification that can be picked apart by someone who knows philosophy and epistemology -- and economics. All that really has to be shown is incentive and causation (then you make the value judgment for yourself as to whether or not you like the results). I dont see any reason why considering something outside your own ego needs to be confirmed -- because were all thinking, acting individuals -- not a collective that must appeal to Gods, authority, or dogma -- as a hivemind. /1. absolutism So, in this case, police are incentivizing people to return the favor of initiating force. The causation (that is stated by so many) is the fact police act violently with impunity, under the color of law. Many have clearly been negatively affected by interactions with state agents, and these interactions have left many with an uneasy feeling of unfairness -- which apparently incentivizes retribution ie revenge. Police want people to respect their authority arbitrarily without having to first earn it, while [at least some] people want security and protection services to be paid for under normalized market conditions (competition with market regulations), not with extortion money or a system that allows political edict enforcers to be able to act with impunity under the color of law. With regard to respect, its worth noting that the vast majority of people typically have respect for others, their things, and their property, but rarely do they offer respect to undue authority without some reason. Unless, of course, we are talking about state agents ie politicians, military, police, etc, -- then there are those that offer it up blindly, without question. For instance, its mostly the case that when people visit a foreign property (ie one they arent accustomed to), they [mostly] respect the rules of that property -- to not offend or anger the proprietors and help keep order. These ethical norms are built into commerce and the day to day interactions of society. There is a conservative tendency about the human to hedge against risk (from harm or embarrassment). Its easier and more profitable to go along with the rules of the property so long as they arent oppressive. So, there exists a great incentive of property owners and commercial stores to not create rules that patrons find too oppressive, and mostly let them go about their business freely: more profit. The other thing is people offer respect to known figures in a specific field (like in science or economics or different professions and industries) because they are peer reviewed -- that is tried and tested as knowledge bearers or have proven themselves with some revered act. So, to the cops out there... At this point, its pretty clear the winds of change are blowing -- and they are not in favor of respecting arbitrarily the person(s) wearing a uniform and badge merely because you swore an oath to a political system. The future is going to demand you earn your paycheck like every other market actor -- through voluntary exchange. People are going to have to value your service the way we value any other. Then, if you want respect, youre going to have to earn it just like everyone else. #Agorist
Posted on: Wed, 24 Dec 2014 00:35:13 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015