Friday, February 12, 2010
Taking a stand on the really important questions
Much as the libertarian in me bridles, in the end I have to agree with Ezra and Spencer: The government really ought to register and regulate super-heroes.
11 Comments:
By 
, at
Fri Feb 12, 04:04:00 PM:
From Ezra Klein's Iron Man blurb (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/02/iron_man_was_right.html ): "If the state has any legitimate function at all, it's to train and regulate people who could accidentally kill everyone in a hundred-mile radius."
Then I suppose he considers the PRC to be right, and the English to be wrong. After all, a similar, umm, explosion of capability existed with the development of gunpowder, and before that of distance weapons generally. Stupid English should have begun regulating every citizen in their varied kingdoms.
If this is the definition of the purpose of the state, then I prefer anarchy.
Eric Hines
By 
Charlottesvillain, at
Fri Feb 12, 04:33:00 PM:
"Who's watching The Watchmen?"
By , at
Fri Feb 12, 07:58:00 PM:
Yeah, those tea party people are the real danger. Let's pretend 9-11 never happened.
By , at
Fri Feb 12, 08:56:00 PM:
I don't agree with those author's statement that the State has an uncontroversial and uncontested monopoly on legitamate force. That's the road to tyranny. In England, a man had to suffer for months of prosecution because he cut the ear of a violent intruder.
The idiot British prosecutor objected to the defender's use of force because he wasn't a cop.
Force is the right of every living creature to ensure its survival. When the government starts to incite riots against minorities like in Indonesia or Burma, the only survival method is to fight back harder and more brutally.
Several generation before me, my family was subject to racial riots incited by the govn't and they used spears and swords to defend themselves. A few decapitated heads sitting on the sidewalk will deter any mob.
Superheroes and Villians should not be registered or regulated. The government should establish a superhero unit instead. Nothing turns a hero into a revolutionary like a tyrannical govn't
By , at
Fri Feb 12, 09:55:00 PM:
The essence of freedom is the proper limitation of government. In my opinion when government gets into limiting superheroes, by God, they have gone way too far...
By Dawnfire82, at
Sat Feb 13, 01:18:00 AM:
"I don't agree with those author's statement that the State has an uncontroversial and uncontested monopoly on legitamate force. That's the road to tyranny."
That's actually the definition of sovereignty.
By Bomber Girl, at
Sat Feb 13, 08:46:00 AM:
What's your confidence level that the government COULD regulate superheroes?
By , at
Sat Feb 13, 09:45:00 AM:
"I don't agree with those author's statement that the State has an uncontroversial and uncontested monopoly on legitamate force. That's the road to tyranny."
That's actually the definition of sovereignty.
Yes, and in a free nation, such as a democracy or a republic, it's the people who are the sovereigns; their government are merely the people's employees.
Eric Hines
By Dawnfire82, at
Sat Feb 13, 10:17:00 AM:
Don't let your poetic ideals about how government ought to work get in the way of how governments must work.
'The People' cannot maintain a monopoly on the legitimate use of force and be sovereigns of anything. That doesn't make sense. That is a recipe for anarchy, the anti-state.
Rather, the government maintains such a monopoly and derives its legitimacy from the fact that it is a representative government subject to the 'Will of the People.' But regular citizens hold no legal power whatever, most especially the power to exercise violence according to their own judgment, unless it be granted by said government. Whatever rights you may possess exist only because 1) a governmental document says that they do, 2) a judge somewhere has (probably) agreed, and 3) state organs exist to enforce the maintenance of said rights.
A state which gives up or otherwise does not possess such a monopoly on legitimate force eventually ceases to be a state, at least in the areas so affected (see Lebanon, past Iraq).
By , at
Sat Feb 13, 02:04:00 PM:
so you are arguing that individuals cannot exert force to defend themselves? That only official police and military personnel can legitimately dispense force?
So the man defending his family from a home intruder cannot defend himself? A monopoly on force by the government is the road to slavery. Why do you think Thomas Jefferson wanted the population to have the right to bear arms.
Our Constitution does not grant the People rights, it acknowledges the natural and automatic rights people have when they are alive. The Constitution limits the government and tries to provide a government framework.
A State does not require a monopoly of force to function, the USA is an example where the police and military are merely more powerful than individuals. Yet, the individuals are allowed and posses firearms and weapons to exert force. Superheroes are just more well equiped.
By Foxfier, at
Mon Feb 15, 08:19:00 PM:
Flawed:
IF
the Gov't has a monopoly on force
THEN
it must be able to regulate individuals based on a poorly defined category.
Total BS, before we even get to the question on if gov't gets a monopoly on force. (I suspect it's a problem of definition.)
The phrase "monopoly on force" brings up the correction "monopoly on violence" with a wiki German philosopher top-ranked, so I suspect it's less than cut and dried.
What's a super hero? We have Norse gods(Thor), guys in power suits (Iron Man), aliens (Silver Surfer), magic using humans (Scarlet Witch) magical non-humans (Lockheed), post-birth mutants (Fantastic Four) and born mutants (X-men).... 16 origins on the Marvel wiki.
It's almost as if they declared a right to regulate anyone capable of deadly force-- good grief! A ten year old girl can kill you in the right situation, WITHOUT a gun!
