Comment: Force

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: He's answered your question (see in situ)


"He's answered your question multiple times. You just can't seem to make the connection that governments require force to exist. You pick out a dictionary entry and limit the debate to the words on the page and rule out the implications of those words."

Well dictionaries represent the commonly held definitions of words, so if we want to relate to the rest of society that doesn't spend their time reading Rothbard and posting on the Daily Paul, wouldn't it make sense to use the words as their commonly held meaning dictates?

When we take all the governments of the past that have been formed in an ill-conceived way, and then say therefore nobody can form a government, this is akin to saying "hey see that bully over there, he's a bully, we should punish him with the death penalty. Screw reform."

It's quite obvious to me from a decade or so of doing this that the vast majority of people want a government. My question clearly dictates that the government is formed through consent.

So you would not allow people form a government? Is that correct?

"Under any government, even one formed with 100% consent, there will inevitably be laws that not everyone agrees with, yet they follow it anyway because they know force will be used against them if they don't. If the government did not necessarily use force to enforce its laws, it wouldn't be able to do any "governing" at all."

You state this as a fact. A government formed voluntarily to enforce natural doesn't necessarily need to create new laws outside of natural law enforcement that people don't agree with. And if they do people have the right to secede from said governments.

So what is your issue with the above scenario? Would you use force to stop a government such as this from forming?
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*