Defining Libertarianism (was Defining Terrorism)

Barry Roberts blr at robertsr.us
Wed Jun 26 16:29:49 MDT 2013


On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Daniel C. <dcrookston at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> In this fantasy world where we all live without violence, all it takes
> is for one person to decide that they're going to be violent and
> suddenly everyone else loses their agency.  The choice to live in
> peace no longer exists: you can either be violently subjugated, or you
> can try to stop the violence... which ironically requires being
> violent in return.  And of course you didn't choose violence -
> somebody else did, and when they chose it your ability to live in
> peace disappeared.
>
> Without a government (which is the sole authorized proprietor of
> violence) in place, a free market is only free so long as everyone
> plays nice.  Alternatively you could create a free market in which
> mercenary protection is available to those who can afford it, but you
> probably didn't even finish reading that statement before you realized
> how wrong that situation would go.
>

Wait, in one paragraph did you just prove that self-defense is a
necessity, and in the next paragraph endorse government monopoly on
force?

The munchkin wrangler responds more eloquently than I can:

http://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com/2007/03/23/why-the-gun-is-civilization/


More information about the PLUG mailing list