I would note that this is expressly at odds with the model of government enshrined in the Constitution (and I mean, even the original text + bill of rights, not later amendments), which clearly envisions even the federal government as having a much larger role than as "the collective extension of our innate right to self-defense", at least as one would normally conceive that phrase.
And, I'd further note, that I can't see any government not empowered to take action to internalize external costs and benefits of economic transactions as being worthwhile, or in fact of such a minimal government as being anything but oppressive-in-effect. Of course, on the externalized cost side, one could view such costs as a form of violence (unconsented harm inflicted by others), and defending against them as part of the innate right of self-defense, and then the limitation on government you propose would still admit a government empowered to address economic externalities. At which point, defending government involvement in transit becomes a lot easier, even within the framework you set out.
Agreed. But I never said I thought the Constitution was a big deal, or the model for perfect government. As it happens, I have a LOT of issues with pretty much all aspects of our government as it exists today.
That said, I do wish they'd at least play by their own rules, as a federal government strictly bound by the Constitution would almost certainly be smaller and less corrupt than what we have now. But nobody really seems to give a shit about the Constitution these days.
Just because you want me to pay for your defense, doesn't mean I should. I don't particularly care if you live or die.
If you want me to pay for something for you, such as your defense, what are you going to offer me in return? Are you going to pay for my health care? Want to pay for a new plasma TV for me?
I'd be interested in hearing your rationale for that line of thinking. I believe there is, because I believe in self-ownership. I own my body, and I have the right to defend it (me) from harm.
Just because you want me to pay for your defense, doesn't mean I should. I don't particularly care if you live or die.
Where did I say anything about you paying for my defense? I'm a Voluntaryist[1], dude... I don't support any arrangements that aren't voluntary. When I say the State is "the collective extension to our innate right..." I mean to say that a group of people should voluntarily be able to create a State (or State-like entity) for mutual defense, if they want to. I don't propose anybody be forced to do so.
That's not a "right". That's just an "action".
Rights are protected by a legal structure. There are no 'rights' without a higher-power legal structure to provide it.
Anyone can say they have any 'right' - defense, speech, a Plasma TV in the bathroom, etc.. doesn't mean you're given that 'right' without a higher power granting and enforcing that right.
Rights are protected by a legal structure. There are no 'rights' without a higher-power legal structure to provide it.
We are working with very different definitions of what a "right" is. A "right" in my book is "something you don't need anyone else's permission to do". So, defending myself, obviously is a right. Walking into your home, opening your refrigerator and taking a swig from the milk jug, is not a right I have.
Sounds like we basically come down on the different sides of the argument about "negative right" vs "positive rights". I don't believe in "positive rights", so the idea of "the right to a Plasma TV in the bathroom" is basically nonsense to me. All it means to me is, "of course you have the right to buy a Plasma TV and put it in your bathroom, if you want to and can afford it".
And how do you resolve your 'don't need permission' with the fact that powers bigger than you can do what they wish with you. Do you have the right to defend yourself if government is trying to arrest you?
You basically redefined 'action' again. You don't need permission to do any action... you just do it.
I can't tell if you're just trying to be provocative, or if you genuinely don't get the distinction here, but I'll err on the side of good faith. What I'm saying is that most of the time, when people talk about things like "the right to have a Plasma TV" what they are saying is that they are entitled to a Plasma TV and that someone else (can|must|should) be compelled to provide them said TV. That would be a "positive right" and I disagree that such rights exist. However, of course you have "the right to purchase a Plasma TV and install it in your bedroom". Because you don't need anyone's permission to do so.
Do you have the right to defend yourself if government is trying to arrest you?
Of course you do. The government may not recognize said right, and since they may employ more men with guns than you do, they may be able to compel you to go along with their dictates through force, but that doesn't mean it's right.
At the end of the day, there's probably no way to ever totally escape "might makes right" since a person (or persons) with sufficient power can over-power those who disagree with them. As far as I'm concerned though, that's a meaningless tautology. The issue that concerns me is to what extent we institutionalize the use of force, particularly in any offensive mode.
And, even if they couldn't, my answer would only be to say that I don't hold that I'm entitled to a road, an ambulance, or a hospital.