Comment: Having a government for purposes of securing rights does not

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: That strawman is all turned to dust (see in situ)

Having a government for purposes of securing rights does not

necessarily imply monopoly on the use of force for self defense.

In fact, it doesn't now. If it did, it would be illegal for you to use force in self-defense, yet the examples of people killing others, either for protection of life or property when attacked (depending on the State involved) are quite extensive in number.

To be sure, just as we need to refocus government on its sole purpose, we would be re-evaluating just how limited that is in practical terms, and of course, how that does not in any way grant a monopoly on self defense, making citizens sitting ducks.

We also might find, after reducing government to its proper role, that we really don't need it at all, and can accomplish the same ends through other means.

But we haven't tried that yet, and there is little to no evidence anything else would work.

We can't just press the Easy Button to get their either.

The path to less government and then no-government has to begin somewhere, and you aren't going to get people to agree to make the leap until they begin to see results.