There are the three outcomes of autonomy, hierarchy, or uniformity. More specifically, I mean imposed hierarchy. Both hierarchy (maximizing disparate outcomes between individuals) and uniformity (minimizing disparate outcomes between individuals) require force, where the conforming-entitled values uniformity and the servile-thief values hierarchy.
The conforming-entitled often mistakes uniformity with unity, and the servile-thief mistakes hierarchy with security. Uniformity is not unity, and hierarchy is not security. The former has been shown, and now so too will the latter.
Protection vs Security
In terms of protection, the servile are convinced that the master’s means to take will provide some form of security to them that they otherwise would not have. This is always a lie.
Security is privacy, anonymity, and defense.
The former two cannot be gained by another. The Individual himself must provide those things. If he is under the rule of a master, then he will not have privacy nor anonymity from the master. In relation to other threats, the master can only possibly provide anonymity or privacy to his subordinates by policy and not by design. If it were by design, then the Individual would possess it without the presence of the master. The Individual must then trust the Master to provide these things and keep his word (policy). Any who willfully chooses a master must already trust him and therefore be servile to begin with.
As for the latter (defense), free individuals protect themselves better than rulers because (i) the Individual always has a greater interest in protecting himself than another does, and because (ii) no other can always be there to protect the Individual. Rulers only make it more difficult for individuals to protect themselves because the more powerful the Individuals, the less secure the rulers. Rulers have an interest in the ruled being less secure.
In fact, some imposed hierarchical structure (namely, the Masters that control it) would have an incentive to spread lies about threats other than itself. This is both fear mongering and hope mongering. The very existence of the “common criminal” is necessary to justify the State chastisement sector, leaving little incentive for State officials to actually solve it (if even possible). The extent to which the State official can solve the issue is merely revenge and punishment at best. Actually solving it would mean that the “common criminal” is less common than before because crime is being stopped, and this only occurs in a free society.
In a free world, many of the current criminals would realize that crime has more costs than benefits because the free Individual provides more security to himself than the master provides for his slave. The free society is then only left with the rare crazies that also exist in the State society.
Just as imposed Uniformity cannot provide Unity, imposed Hierarchy cannot provide security. The irony is that the Individual requires security to not suffer from hierarchy imposed! It is the victim’s lack of security that enables the hierarchy to begin with! As the saying goes, the State cannot provide a man with security but it can ensure that he will have none.
Part I: Autonomy Taken