|
Fritz Schranck of Sneaking Suspicions asks me politely where I think he was going wrong in his analysis of the Alexandria situation. Now, I think that he is assuming that, had the police been able and/or willing to enforce Crosby's control of the parking spaces in question, others would have been sufficiently respectful of, or intimidated by, the majesty of the law that they would not have vandalized the cars properly using them. (If I am wrong about my assumption, of course, he is welcome to correct me.) He is almost certainly correct insofar that the amount would have been less than it is. On the other hand, such vandalism is, well, vandalism. As such, it is against the law. We might contend that the apprehension of the vandals is unlikely, that the resources necessary to do so would be better employed elsewhere. We might even be correct in such arguments. And, of course, the same arguments could be applied to the initial circumstance of usurping Crosby's parking spaces. Yet, such arguments have been made and accepted, the question remain: what other steps might Crosby take to secure her rights? Schranck seems to me to be arguing that she ought not to take any steps; that the admittedly imperfect self-help scheme, offering less than the official police might, ought not to be tried for that reason. I am certainly not an anarchocapitalist. The whole basis for the liberal state, however, rests on the argument that it can and will secure the rights of those who are too weak, or otherwise incapable, of securing them themselves. Once this argument is undermined by nonfeasance (however justified and proper), what additional arguments can be supplied for the state's existence? John "Akatsukami" Braue Wednesday, August 07, 2002 |
|