Agreed. Parent's analogy only works in a world where breaking and entering was legal, and it was everyone's personal responsibility to defend their home.
We live in a world where breaking and entering is possible, and the police may only come after the fact, and might not come at all — it is everyone's personal responsibility to defend his home. Likewise, we live in a world where violating one's privacy is possible, which means it is probable, and thus it is everyone's personal responsibility to defend his privacy.
What do you think would have more of an impact on the security of your home: repealing the laws against breaking & entering, or removing the lock from your door?
It's naive to think of oneself as strong enough to self-protecting. I know there's a certain appeal in the lone wolf myth that speaks to the (mostly male) psyche. But never in the history of mankind has it been the winning strategy to be strong and independent.
Since we were apes in trees, our security has relied entirely on a strong net of social bonds. Cooperation is the strongest force multiplier, and no matter how many guns you have, you wouldn't have chance against even against a small group. Laws are nothing but a formal manifestation of group behaviour.
Then, there's the attacker-defender asymmetry: defending yourself means defending yourself 100% of the time. There is no middle-class home in the US that I couldn't get into if I really wanted, nor are there any non-famous people that I couldn't kill with a bit of dedication.
It wouldn't be possible to protect against such threads without the rule of law. And even if it were, it would amount to a giant collective waste of resources. Personally, I also don't want to think of any stranger as a thread, but that's what it would require.
> What do you think would have more of an impact on the security of your home: repealing the laws against breaking & entering, or removing the lock from your door?
Honestly, the latter. I don't believe laws prevent thieves from breaking in, nor do they keep honest people honest. I don't really buy the deterrent theory of law in general, anyway: law exists to punish in a civil and orderly fashion, not to deter.
This is ridiculous nonsense (although living in the West of the US myself, I know a few people who have this mentality). We just don't live in a world where the fact that nobody is robbing you blind is entirely due to fear that you'll shoot them. That's pure fantasy. They're not robbing you blind due to things like : they have jobs and are gainfully employed doing something more profitable than robbing people; they'd (eventually) be caught and sent to jail; and so on..
