Re: I don't agree with the petition

A state is NOT essential, as the Icelanders proved for over three centuries a millenium ago. They had three centuries of stability before a rising crime rate (lower than what we have in the US at present) pressured them into forming a state. Three centuries of stability is at least two centuries more stability than the USA has ever had.

But even given the usefulness of a minimal state, that does not mean that this proposed "protection" is a good idea, because it gives the state a justification for FUTURE interventions that are detrimental to minorities. The impulse which claims that the government can prevent free speech to protect us from vigilantes is the same impulse which claims that the government can prevent Our free speech to protect children from "the evil pedophiles". I don't want any part of that.

There are already laws against making threats or harming people, and those are the laws we should rely on. I want my enemies to have free speech because I want free speech.

That said, I certainly understand the desire to petition the government for a fair hearing for us and for enforcing laws against harassment and libel that are already on the books, and I think that can be a very good thing. I do not mean to demean any who have signed, as in the current climate it is a brave and noble act to stand up against prevailing opinion, but I do think we need to be very careful what we ask for. We should not forget that in the 20th century the vast majority of murder and mayhem was carried out by governments against their own people, not by common criminals or vigilantes.