5 ms·
Because that self same freeholder should be ready and willing to negotiate with others to provide whatever goods and services he needs. He shouldn't need a thir
by thegrimmest 5y ago
Because that self same freeholder should be ready and willing to negotiate with others to provide whatever goods and services he needs. He shouldn't need a third party to intervene on his behalf, and, knowing that depriving anyone of freedom deprives him as well, should be loathe to apply force to compel the other free party he is negotiating with to meet his terms.
- Apocryphon 5y agoSounds like then the truly moral position would be to cut out the government entirely. If the freeholder is ready to take on the grave responsibility of ensuring every single interaction, both large and small, are secure, then they should also be responsible for guaranteeing their own rights from all threats large and small, and not abdicate that in favor of a shadowy government.
- thegrimmest 5y agoBelieve it or not, in the moment, you can use any sort of force required to defend yourself from violence. This is especially true in places that have castle doctrines and stand-your-ground laws. The government is there mostly to sort it out afterwards, and to discourage aggression by providing an alternative (due process) and punishing transgressors. The punishment of crime is what the government monopolizes, not self defence, since the alternative is generations-long blood feuds.
- Apocryphon 5y agoWhy should the government be able to monopolize the punishment of crime, and not those who uphold their own rights?
- thegrimmest 5y agoBecause if they don't maintain law and order they fail to meet the basic definition of government.
- Apocryphon 5y agoWhy does there need to be a government at all?
- thegrimmest 5y agoTo defend the liberty of its citizens =)
- Apocryphon 5y agoIsn't that what the right of bear arms is for?