> I'm not sure why people with a libertarian bent have to keep bringing guns into arguments.
Because if someone chooses to not obey, they will eventually face a gun which they did not bring.
Because if someone chooses to not obey, they will eventually face a gun which they did not bring.
Of course, shooting people over "legal action" sounds crazy, so to make yourself sound better you'd better keep talking about guns.
Edit: Here's a good example of the alternative to shooting people, from Bob Brown, former leader of the Greens here in Australia:
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/as-...
a) it works, and b) if you can't find 1000 people who are also willing to come and protest, perhaps your cause isn't that worthwhile?
The fact that the state/government has a monopoly on violence means that your interactions with them aren't necessarily voluntary. Many people don't have a problem with paying for roads, or some semblance of a military, or schools or whatnot.
But the very nature of a state is that if you don't do what it tells you to, you have no recourse. Someone might not put a gun to your head but you have to know that there's no negotiation.
Bullshit.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/aug/20/civil-d...
Choosing to break an unjust law doesn't mean that a judge will understand the injustice of it and let you go free, nor is there any assurance that jury would acquit you. That's what I mean when I say "there's no negotiation"
Once a police officers decides to arrest you all negotiations have ceased and they may do whatever the law tells them to, or whatever the law lets them get away with, or perhaps a bit more.