Ron wrote:
> Mike asked : Since the chief violator of individual rights is the
> state, how can the state defend its citizens against
> itself?The State can not defend its citizens against itself.
Do you mean to tell me, Ron, the concept of the state is a
contradiction in terms, built on a non sequitor?
Best, Michael
Dear Dr. Mike;
You asked: Do you mean the concept of the state is a contradiction in terms, built on a non sequitor?
Non-sequitor:
Definition:
[n] (logic) a conclusion that does not follow from the premises
[n] a reply that has no relevance to what preceded it
Which definition of non-sequitor were you referring to?
From the days of Socrates - Plato - Aristotle people have debated what is the State and does the State have any relevance. In the context of the thread and your original question of whether or not the State can defend its Citizens from itself. NO - the State can not be relied on to defend its Citizens from itself. The State is a cannibal eating its young.
The State is a creation of its people. Or in some cases a figment of its imagination. Should its people decide to do away with the State for any reason they deem necessary then let it happen. The State is of the people by the people and occassionally for the people. The people need to be constantly vigilant to protect themselves from the State. The State will not look after its young should the State decide to eat its young. It's every man for themselves in such a milieu.
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian
"Dr. Michael R. Edelstein" <dredelstein@...> wrote:
Ron wrote:
> Mike asked : Since the chief violator of individual rights is the
> state, how can the state defend its citizens against
> itself?The State can not defend its citizens against itself.
Do you mean to tell me, Ron, the concept of the state is a
contradiction in terms, built on a non sequitor?
Best, Michael