The first one points to the problem I've brought up before and one Mises so well defined: socialism can't calculate. If I had a choice in civil service I'd quit paying for these organizations that budget so poorly that they can't wade into the water and pull a man to safety. Yet without this profit and loss mechanism, the more inefficient they are the more money they get! On the market goods get better and cheaper, with socialism goods get worse and more expensive.
Point two brings up the very fundamental problem of conflating morality and legality or right and duty. If only the statist could properly delineate the two we'd have a much more just society. Here are a list of examples that I will use to clarify right and duty.
- Defending the victim of a mugger
- Stopping genocide in Rwanda
- Financially supporting the police department
- Owning a gun
- Police or firefighters protecting someone or their property
Defending the victim of a mugger
Let's start from the top. If I see someone getting mugged and I let it happen with the means to stop it then it is immoral for me not to act. However, it is perfectly legal for me not to act. I am not the initiator of aggression; the mugger is.
Stopping genocide in Rwanda
Similarly, stopping genocide in Rwanda would be a good and noble thing to do. While I don't have the expertise or equipment to do it personally, I could choose an organization that accumulates capital in armaments and has an excellent track record of only harming enemy combatants. But like the mugging I am not (under natural rights) legally obligated to stop the genocide because again I'm not the aggressor. And pacifists should have the right not to use, promote, or financially support violence under any conditions. Unfortunately, in this country and in most of the world, we constantly confuse morality and legality thus it is illegal not to support the U.S.'s monopoly of foreign violence. Instead of spending the resources to stop the mugger or stop the murderous tyrant we spend resources going after the bystander who has done nothing to violate the rights of anyone else.
Financially supporting police or fire departments
The last three examples all sort of get rolled into one. Under free association and property rights, no one should be obligated to support any institution they disagree with. When police kill innocent people or firefighters let homes burn, we should be able to withdraw our support of these poorly managed and downright heinous organizations. We should also be able to start a competing business.
Owning a gun
Liberals tout the right to choose, to own our bodies, etc. as essential to our right to freedom. But they don't really mean that. The most immediate and obvious choice in law enforcement is gun ownership. As the saying goes, "when seconds counts, the cops are just minutes away". The left believe in a right to defend ourselves because they believe in having police. If they don't believe in defense then they should advocate not only gun control but the end to all police departments. But it's not an end to defense or violence that they advocate, but an absolute monopoly on violence. They are miles away from advocators of choice.
Police or firefighters protecting someone or their property
My connection to the topic is getting frayed so let me tie it back together. If we are going to be forced to pay for the police then the excuse "police have the right not to act" doesn't fly with me. If we're forced to pay then they should be forced to serve. They should be forced to jump into the frigid water butt naked and save that man. Firefighters should rush to the burning house and try putting out the fire even if the only means they have available to them is to piss on the flames. Not doing so should be punishable with prison or death.
How did I come to this conclusion? Well if it's punishable by prison and thus an implicit threat of violence/death to not support the police or fire department, then we are punishing the bystander of the mugger or the person who refuses to use violence to stop genocide. Thus if the police or fire departments also fail to help people or make the situation worse, then they should be held to the same accountability and punishment as the tax evader (the passive bystander).
Of course I don't advocate violence against any non-aggressor, but the above paragraphs are the logically consistent conclusion one would have to draw if he is to advocate for the forced monopoly of law enforcement and fire fighting or the forced participation in the US military or US welfare state. If the absurdities of the system were consistently carried out the system would (rightfully) collapse.
