Anything That's Peaceful Means Anything That's Peaceful

[Red Green]

Anything That's Peaceful Means Anything That's Peaceful
by Laurence M. Vance, October 31, 2011

Leonard Read (1898–1983), opponent of Roosevelt’s New Deal and founder of the Foundation for Economic Education, was one of the twentieth century’s great champions of individual liberty, private property, the free market, and limited government. He counted among his friends and advisors such luminaries as Ludwig von Mises and Henry Hazlitt. Although he authored numerous collections of essays, Read’s most enduring work has arguably been the 1964 book Anything That’s Peaceful.

Read’s one simple rule for society was that it should permit anything that’s peaceful. Not only because the costs associated with stopping peaceful activity always outweigh the benefits, but also because it is immoral for individuals or government to prohibit anything but fraud and violence.

According to Read, the government should be strictly limited to “juridical and policing functions.” The role of government is simply to “keep the peace.” Explains Read, “Keeping the peace means no more than prohibiting persons from unpeaceful actions.” Everything else should be left “to the free, unfettered market.” When a government goes beyond this and prohibits peaceful actions, “such prohibitions themselves are, prima facie, unpeaceful.”

Many people who claim to agree with Read and say they are for liberty, property, free markets, and limited government believe nothing of the kind. Those who call themselves conservatives may rail against socialism, liberalism, and government intervention, but they stop short of wholeheartedly embracing the freedom philosophy. Those who call themselves liberals may pride themselves on their commitment to tolerance and civil liberties, but they likewise reject real freedom. Both groups ultimately show by their actions that they are statists at heart. Just look, for example, at the wide bipartisan support for the war on drugs.

Read believed that “how much of a statist a person is can be judged by how far he would go in prohibiting peaceful actions.” He maintained that “the difference between the socialist and the student of liberty is a difference of opinion as to what others should be prohibited from doing.” This difference of opinion “highlights the essential difference between the collectivists – socialists, statists, interventionists, mercantilists, disturbers of the peace – and those of the peaceful, libertarian faith.”

In my state of Florida, State Representative Ritch Workman, a Republican from the city of Melbourne, has filed a bill (4063) to make dwarf tossing in Florida legal once again. This bizarre competition, which once took place in Florida bars, consisted of bar patrons seeing how far they could throw dwarfs decked in protective gear. The practice was outlawed by the Florida legislature in 1989, when a law was passed that punished bars with $1,000 fines and the suspension or revoking of their liquor licenses if they sponsored a dwarf-tossing event.

Rep. Workman, who believes dwarf tossing to be “repulsive and stupid,” nevertheless told the Palm Beach Post that he was on a quest to “seek and destroy unnecessary burdens on the freedom and liberties of people.” “This is an example of Big Brother government,” said Workman, who also focused on economic freedom: “All that it does is prevent some dwarfs from getting jobs they would be happy to get. In this economy, or any economy, why would we want to prevent people from getting gainful employment?” The bottom line, according to Workman, is that “it’s none of the state’s business if somebody wants to do this.”

Continued: http://www.fff.org/comment/com1110zb.asp

[BlawBlaw]

That's a pretty naive view. What about disruptive activities on public property? The Occupy twats, by this reasoning, could "peacefully" prevent other citizens from using the public facilities. What about blocking traffic? What about shouting down speakers? What about the apprehension of violence, even direct threats? Abuse of trust an authority, or are we going to extend the definition of "fraud" here? Same with undue influence in getting granny to sign a new will leaving you everything? Abetting?

The list goes on.

[Red Green]

Generally speaking, if the occupy people are peaceful, then what of it? Don't they have as much right to "public property" as anyone else?

As for the various examples of fraud, I believe the author covered that. If Granny did not have the capacity to understand what she was signing, then a civil court should set it aside. But again that goes back to the very foundation of contract law. If I lack capacity to enter into a contract, the contract is null.

[BlawBlaw]

A mob can shut down a venue they don't like without being "violent" per se: they just stand there so nobody can get anything done.

This is beyond the point that you have these guys setting fires and intimidating female journalists who have the audacity to tape them and tell them it is against the law.

As for granny, the point is that contract law has many exceptions to the basic rules on the premise that people can be taken advantage of in a grossly unfair manner. Mental capacity involves a spectrum rather than some point on a line, depending on the purpose that you are discussing.

[DA_Champion]

A mob can shut down a venue they don't like without being "violent" per se: they just stand there so nobody can get anything done.

This is beyond the point that you have these guys setting fires and intimidating female journalists who have the audacity to tape them and tell them it is against the law.

As for granny, the point is that contract law has many exceptions to the basic rules on the premise that people can be taken advantage of in a grossly unfair manner. Mental capacity involves a spectrum rather than some point on a line, depending on the purpose that you are discussing.

What's your alternative to "anything that's peaceful" ???

I don't agree with that view, but I think it's a good alternative to the current theoretical framework of having troops in 180 countries and being groped at every airport in order to destroy monsters.

[SovietCanuckistan]

Is it alright to use peaceful means to promote communism, which is the ultimate statist ideology? That's called being a useful idiot and exactly what Marx and the other communists knew people needed before communist revolutions take place.

You have to be vigilant against people who would take away your rights if they were in power.

[BlawBlaw]

A mob can shut down a venue they don't like without being "violent" per se: they just stand there so nobody can get anything done.

This is beyond the point that you have these guys setting fires and intimidating female journalists who have the audacity to tape them and tell them it is against the law.

As for granny, the point is that contract law has many exceptions to the basic rules on the premise that people can be taken advantage of in a grossly unfair manner. Mental capacity involves a spectrum rather than some point on a line, depending on the purpose that you are discussing.

What's your alternative to "anything that's peaceful" ???

I don't agree with that view, but I think it's a good alternative to the current theoretical framework of having troops in 180 countries and being groped at every airport in order to destroy monsters.

I don't see the direct connection.

All I am saying is that you need slightly broader language to define uncivil behaviour.