Its why I logically lean anarchism.
Emotionally, of course, some seem to lean toward anarchy over a deep seated, paranoid driven hatred of government or some belief that revolution is our only way forward. Obviously, nobody here feels that way because such sentiments would be entirely contrary to purposes of this site which is promote increased social and legal acceptance of OC and RKBA through legal means only. Besides which, anyone who really thought anarchy was such a great ideal would have long since packed up and moved to where anarchy was being practiced daily. No reason to hang out among a bunch of statists trying to change their minds.
It still could never be allowed to do things we personally couldn't do. Could it be in a defensive war? Yes just like we can defend ourselves. Yet winning at all costs is immoral just like it would be for you and I to kill our nemesis family to make him leave us alone.
Always funny to see folks trying to figure out how to make or keep war moral. War is inherently evil. Even when it is defensive, justified, and required, it is still evil. It is just less evil than the alternative.
There are, of course, things that don't help win a war and are particularly evil that should be avoided.
But if the choice is between winning a way and losing a defensive war of survival, the first law of nature, that law upon which our 2nd amendment RKBA is built, justifies winning the war. There is no such thing as a "fair" street fight. "If you aren't cheating, you are losing."
In a state of nature, I'd have a right not merely to end the immediate threat to my life and limb, but to eliminate it permanently if possible. Within a functioning society and government, I retain the right to end the immediate threat, but I delegate the right to permanently end the threat. The latter becomes the job of impartial third parties like the police, prosecutors, courts, and prisons; who attempt to properly determine guilt of innocence without a self-interest, to impose punishment, and to encourage rehabilitation so that the threat is ended.
As you said, the government can do nothing that I cannot do myself (in a state of nature). It is my inherent right to permanently end a threat that allows me to delegate to government the power to imprison people, force them to participate in anger management or other programs intended to change thinking and behavior, and otherwise work to permanently end threats from those who have proven to be a threat. In some cases, rehabilitation is deemed not likely and so a threat find himself sentenced to life without possibility of parole. In some even more extreme cases, the crime is so heinous and the implicit threat moving forward is so severe as to warrant capital punishment.
So when 100 or 300 million of us get together and form a government, that government has the proper delegated power to permanently end threats against us. If a nation declares war on us and attacks us, unprovoked, then we have a right not merely to end the immediate threat, but to take what measures as we deem will most likely end that threat permanently, or at least as permanently as can be obtained.
This was not done well at the end of WWI when the Kaiser was defeated and within 25 years the world was facing a second world war. We thought the first one was bad. But the second was far worse including the near genocide of an entire race of people in Europe. The war crimes of the Imperial Japanese are less well known, but no less stomach wrenching. So we ended WWII in ways calculated not to repeat the errors of WWI. We demanded total, unconditional surrender on both fronts and then rebuilt both infrastructure and society in ways to prevent future wars.
It is a most remarkable thing and anyone who has studied history stands in awe of what the US and English accomplished. We did not acquire territory to speak of; did not impose our language or customs; did not try to eliminate the conquered races through rape or forced intermarriage. But we rebuilt our former enemies in ways that at once respected and altered their cultures.
Only the historically ignorant fail to realize the majesty and miracle of what was done. Only some kind of simmering, seething, self-loathing is so anxious to condemn as to miss what the outcome was.
But at the end of the day, lose a defensive war of survival to an enemy like the Imperial Japanese, the Nazis, or the Communists and it won't matter how cleanly or morally you think you waged that war. You will have nothing else to take consolation in as your sons are butchered or sent to force labor camps and your wives and daughters are pressed into service as "comfort girls."
The first, last, and only moral rule of war is to win.
If there is something that doesn't materially help you win the war, then you can talk about morals.
Charles
