3 ms·
> In all of those cases, there was no protection of the law And yet, you're claiming that protection of the law entails force (as it must in order to be effect
by otterley 5y ago
> In all of those cases, there was no protection of the law
And yet, you're claiming that protection of the law entails force (as it must in order to be effective against those unwilling to follow the law's dictates) and therefore is to be eschewed. So which is it? You can't have it both ways.
- CryptoPunk 5y agoI assumed it went without saying that force is justified in retaliation to an initiation of force. It is not okay for the government to imprison someone because they didn't want to rent their house to black or white people, or refused to pay the fine for this choice. It is okay for the government to imprison someone because they threatened their neighbour with violence to coerce them into not renting their house to black or white people.