The Smallest Minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities. - Ayn Rand
Apparently he doesn't even understand independence. Why would someone want to be, in effect, a slave?
That was indeed an awesome slideshow. What I never understood though, was if those people don't like the way we do things here, why in the hell don't they go to one of those places in which the government has that monopoly on force?
Actually, your headline -- and one presumes the lackwit quoted -- has it wrong. The concept is that government must have a monopoly on the INITIATION of the use of force.
For reasons that ought to be obvious.
But that may be too long a sentence and thus too complex a concept for leftists to comprehend.
It does NOT extend from there to government's having a monopoly on ALL force. These things need to be balanced -- as any good system engineer can tell you -- or they go all wibberty-jobberty and come off their mounts. Never a pretty picture.
"The Government Must NOT Have a Monopoly on Force"
There, I fixed it for him.
Not, no, none, never-ever.
I wonder if Ladd Everitt has covered his more recent world history?
Ya see, there was this guy name Mao, and he had this idea....
I wouldn't even concede that much, Mark. No person or group of people has the right to initiate force against anyone.
In an ideal world, no.
Since when did anyone live in an ideal world?
Honestly, I can't think of a time where it's acceptable. One could make the argument for preemptive acts, but aren't these really responses to threats?
A "threat" is not "initiation of force."
At least not in my dictionary.
If someone threatens to rob me - at some point in the future - I am not justified in using force against that person.
If I believe another nation will probably use a nuclear weapon against me should they manufacture one, am I justified in using force to prevent that?
I thought about writing Mr. Everitt to say, "**** you. Strong letter to follow," but I decided my time was better spent writing my senators to ask them to oppose Sullivan.
Well, here's a simple scenario:
You and your child are in the living room of your home. Your CC weapon is on the table beside you. A man opens your front door, which is not locked, walks in, sees your child, and says, "I'm going to strangle your child."
Do you have the right to pick up your weapon and shoot him to prevent the attack that he has threatened, but so far has not initiated? Remember, he has not used any "force" so far, as your front door was not locked, he hasn't touched anyone, and he hasn't moved since making his threat.
By my rules, you're goddamned right you do, and by the laws of the State of Oklahoma, you would have an affirmative defense.