3 ms·
That's not really a good framing. If we allow that the police have a legitimate function to exercise justifiable violence on behalf of the state, then the right
by mindslight 3y ago
That's not really a good framing. If we allow that the police have a legitimate function to exercise justifiable violence on behalf of the state, then the right to self defense must obviously be limited against duly authorized and duly noticed state violence. And unfortunately in your example "threatening" isn't really litigable, making the details collapse into just a duly-authorized traffic stop.
There's probably an argument to be made from a natural rights framing that the right to self defense is still applicable to unjustifiable but duly authorized state violence, like say the war on drug users. Though I don't know how this could be applied practically. Perhaps limiting the number of cops that can carry out any arrest, such that there's an actual balance of power?
- rpmisms 3y agoCops do have authority to use violence, but they must not have a monopoly. If a cop encroaches on another person in an unjustified manner, they should face exactly the same consequences, up to and including death.
- mindslight 3y agoI've certainly said nothing supporting police having a monopoly on violence in general. However, it seems unavoidable that cops have a temporary situation-scoped monopoly on violence while carrying out duly authorized functions. What other possible alternative is there that wouldn't also lead to every traffic stop being a shoot out?
- rpmisms 3y agoYeah, I agree with you. I'm a blue-sky libertarian, but libertarianism is an ideal, not a practical form of government.