Currently Online 
Mr Khan said:
Where i was going with that was that this largely boils down to the politics of "who do we trust?" He's trying to make the claim that Americans are trustworthy with use of force, but he really means "certain," Americans, which is what i'm trying to draw out here. |
That isn't what I'm trying to say though. What I'm trying to say is that NOBODY should be entrusted with the use of force. But, if somebody utilizes force, one must meet it with force. Hence, all should have an equal ability to self-defence, but also defence of one's property. That's the entire principle of the non-aggression axiom. Force is forbidden, but if somebody does it anyway then you are entitled to force as it's a natural right to ensure life and liberty. This is the basis for self-defence. This also includes a group or state taking your property, albeit our constitution doesn't go that far, and only secures the "taking of property without proper reward" but it does secure a particular variety of property in the form of the second amendment.
Essay Pro