The child metaphor and Benevolent Paternalism

My friend wrote to me.."I have power over my little boy, protecting him from what I call his efforts to kill himself: climbing on the roof, running into the street, playing with sharp blades. Just now I'm making him vacuum up a mess of cracker crumbs that he leaves on the floor, or I said I would turn off the TV. I could do it myself but shouldn't he develop a sense of responsibility? And how could he do this without first developing respect for the power that I have over him? Ahh. He just now defied me, throwing things onto the floor downstairs to show that HE has power of ME. So the TV is off and he's timed out in his bed, raging about how unfair I am to make him do something so boring. He says that the future will be much better because then he won't have to do anything he does not want to do. Isn't it a good thing for him that I'm bigger than he is? :))"

This example would seeming validate POO. But isn't there a difference between institutionalized relations between Adults who presumptively know about things like gravity and blades and running enough to not endanger themselves and others (and if they do so, to treat others and expect to be treated as responsible agents) because they have not lived years sufficient to have the knowledge common adults, which enables them to live self-regulated lives.

He continued..."The state has power over me: regulating driving speed, enforcing boundaries of self and property, regulating medical licenses and facilities. It was not so long ago that patent medicines were sold as cure alls with codeine as the only active ingredient. Sanitation and safety are regulated. A failure of regulation has precipitated this most recent economic crisis. Regulation is demanded in order to prevent abortion. Police are needed to enforce regulation. Isn't this all power over others?"

Nope. In America our Declaration of Independence and Constitution say that all rights are inalienable properties of Human beings. The state never has any Rights, it only has powers we surrender to it in certain very specific circumstances. Police do not have power over us, unless we surrender it to them, and we do so *only* (if we're clever as *I* am) because its legitimate for them to prevent us using POO unrestrictedly on each other. The Only legitimate use of POO is to restrain the illegitimate use of POO.

...

The Staw Anarchist. How Anarchy is the Leftmost edge of politics, where Left = Tyranny, and Right = Maximum Freedom thru Rights-Limited Democracy

My friend went on to say..."The complication of your POO thesis might be summed up by understanding that anarchy is fundamentally a system in which institutionalized power over others is refuted. BUT ... individuals are then freed to act in the most destructive ways."

This is usually the first Straw Man I am asked to knock down. If you make a political spectrum with Individualism on one end and Slavery on the other, anarchy is the same end as Slavery. Its totalitarianism taken to such an extreme the Tyrant is not off in some distant capital..he's the biggest thug on your street. Its a maximization of Governance, not any sort of reduction or freedom from Government.

He also said..."The anarchy of Lebanon's civil war is a good example; decades of destruction because of the failure of its government. Somalia today is a good example, where the failure of the state (Somalia is called a failed state) allows for all sorts of criminality. Ideals such as anarchy, universal compassion, or anti-POO fail when they do not take into account the "finitude" (your word :) of the human condition."

I disagree that ideals fail. Compassion that is not compassionate to all, is not compassion. Freedom which is not the most free for all, is not freedom. If Anarchy is touted as an Ideal Freedom, its simply because somebody's left realityland, to be "idealistic." I am not prone to that error, I am Realist Idealist.