2 ms·

I've never claimed or believed otherwise. The absence of coercion would be Utopian. Also, you left out a key word: legitimized. It's important and absolutely e

• rayiner 13y ago
  In the absence of government, all violent becomes de facto legitimate, as it is in the state of nature. It is meaningless to call something "illegitimate" versus "legitimate" when you have no recourse to stop "illegitimate" actions.
  • burntsushi 13y ago
    > The difference between legitimized coercion and de-facto coercion is a distinction without a difference. It would be appreciated if you made this fundamental disagreement clear when responding. It literally makes no sense to speak of anything else on this topic if we disagree on this point. Legitimized coercion is a concept that distinguishes organizations governing an arbitrary geographic location and its people/property and the natural coercion that arises from conflicts between individuals. The former is permitted by the law of the land (whatever it may be); the latter is not. I believe the distinction is worth making. More than that, I believe the former can be scrubbed out while the latter cannot. EDIT to address your EDIT > In the absence of government, all violent becomes de facto legitimate, as it is in the state of nature. I have never seen any libertarian philosophy use the word "legitimate" to mean "natural" in this context. I certainly am not. My hope is that the other part of this comment clarifies.
  • Zigurd 13y ago
    You are setting up a straw man. One level of government can lose legitimacy or the ability to operate without government at other levels losing the ability to perform.