Government Eqauls Force?

[SourKraut]

This topic came up in a disusssion I was was having with a friend last week. He kept saying how the Government forces him to pay taxes, forces him to follow laws, forces him to accept things he doesn't agree with (think LGTB). For the most part I agree with his thinking that the government forces certain things on the People.

So, I asked him what are the only acceptable terms for use of force? He came up with what I think is the right answer- defense of rights and defense of life!

What do you think?

edit- dyslexia got me on the title- cant fix it from here.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

George Washington seemed to agree that it was.

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." -- attributed to George Washington.

Government IS force;
it's rules, it's regulations and ordinances. It is, in it's final form, men with guns forcing you to do things the way 'they' want it done. Everything from paying your voluntary tax contribution to the Elián González affair will be settled by men with guns if all else fails.

 

[Brass Magnet]

[snip]So, I asked him what are the only acceptable terms for use of force? He came up with what I think is the right answer- defense of rights and defense of life!

What do you think?

[/snip]

What's acceptable? I like to think of it this way:

People are born with certain unalienable rights. They certainly have a right to their lives and property gained through the fruits of their labor. People don't have a right to inniate force against another to take the others property or life but they may defend themselves against such innitiation of force.

When people create a government they can not properly give it the power to do things that they; as people, are otherwise unable to do. Therefore, force that is not used in defense of the country, defense of the citizens lives, or defense of property is morally bankrupt. Furthermore, if the government innitiates force preemptively, it's also wrong. After all, since you can't come on to my property to kill my dog just because it MIGHT attack you some day the government also may not require you to get a permit to carry a weapon just because you MIGHT use it for ill some day. Same goes for attacking another country because they MIGHT attack us 10 years from now.

Of course, we see what's really happening now days. This put's in perspective how far the government is getting out of control.

Anyway, I'd add defense of property to your list. Notice how "defense of" seems to be the only reasonable choice.

I wish I had time to say this better but I'm sure someone else will come along.