3 ms·

We are not giving up the right to violence, the point of a government securing your rights is that someone else can't take them away (through violence or other

We are not giving up the right to violence, the point of a government securing your rights is that someone else can't take them away (through violence or other means). It's true people can vote themselves into any government they wanted, but I wager that if you don't want a government running away with your rights, it's best to stick with a limited one. It's much easier to control smaller gonvernments than super governments. It's doubtful that any 1 individual state (save california or ny maybe) could've created prisim.

rayiner 13y ago
> We are not giving up the right to violence, You are. You're agreeing to act "civilized" instead of all the other things you can do in the state of nature. Animals are not obligated to respect each others' "rights." We collectively give up our natural ability to do that, in the hopes that "civilization" is better for us than a free for all. I'm not arguing that bigger governments or smaller governments are better. I'm talking about the process by which we choose a government to govern us. My point is that a government that is small, where people can't vote to make it bigger, is immoral. If people collectively give up their natural ability to use violence on other people, they should get to collectively determine what system they want to put in place to replace the state of nature. Self determination, that's the most fundamental thing, and it's not worth compromising self determination to guarantee limited government.