Defining Libertarianism (was Defining Terrorism)

S. Dale Morrey sdalemorrey at
Wed Jun 26 17:04:05 MDT 2013

It's not philisophical it's political science 101.
The definition of a State is a monopoly on the use of force.  This monopoly
on force is granted to the state by those against whom the force is to be
applied, i.e. the populace.
This is one reason we say government by consent of the governed.  The only
person who can consent to use of force against you is you.  By
participating in the State that you are in you are granting that State the
right to the use of force to enforce the laws of said state against you
(and the other citizens).  If you don't like the laws of the State that
governs you, you need to take whatever action you feel is necessary to
revoke said monopoly or change the laws to your favor.

On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Daniel C. <dcrookston at> wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Barry Roberts <blr at> wrote:
> > Wait, in one paragraph did you just prove that self-defense is a
> > necessity, and in the next paragraph endorse government monopoly on
> > force?
> No.  Defense against force (but not necessarily *self* defense) is
> necessary, and in Hobbes's social contract we (the theoretical "we"
> that Hobbes is discussing, not literally you and I) agree to give up
> our personal right to use force in order to enjoy the freedoms that a
> society give us.
> > The munchkin wrangler responds more eloquently than I can:
> >
> >
> I agree with his point.  People who want to eliminate guns are idiots.
>  A world without guns is a world where violence is "owned" by young
> males.  Guns democratize violence.  (This is a good thing.)
> That said, this point is not really related to the philosophical
> question of why a government's use of force can be considered
> legitimate.
> -Dan
> /*
> PLUG:, #utah on
> Unsubscribe:
> Don't fear the penguin.
> */

More information about the PLUG mailing list