Quote:
Originally Posted by Streck-Fu
Excellent.....passing it along.
I'm not sure about the legitimacy of a monopoly of force by the state nor the certainty that the state employs force for reasons that are always noble.
We have and constantly have to defend the 2nd Am to ensure the state does not have a monopoly of force.
|
I don't think what the speaker is saying is
necessarily in contradiction to what you are saying.
My take is that a more peaceful civilization results from a society resigning its right to initiate violence to solve disputes to a government, which has its powers limited by a democratically agreed upon constitution.
In the United States I can own firearms but as a society we have agreed that I can not go after someone who steals my car and mete out justice as I see fit. As a part of our social contract we have given up that natural right in favor of a system where we have police, judges, and laws to protect us.
It would be interesting to see him elaborate on what he thinks of the civilian's right to bear arms. From an American perspective I think the 2nd Amendment fits in well with his speech. Though we have allowed the government to own a monopoly of force we have reserved the right, through our constitution, to retain arms and revoke that monopoly by force if needed.
Thank you for the link, Richard.