Tuesday, October 07, 2014

An imaginary distinction

I just don't get the distinction.

If a guy is trying to rob you, using potentially deadly force, is it wrong to kill him in self defense if you know he's a pastor?

What if he's a cop?

What does his job matter?

Here's a hint: it doesn't.

Violators deserve to die at the hands of their intended victims at the scene of the attack. That doesn't mean the victim is "required" to kill the attacker, but only an evil person would fault him for doing so.



  1. Why don't you move to a country that has no real government or COPS ?
    You should be in Liberia or Somalia. You could have all the liberty you can make.

    1. Why don't you move to a country with even more government and cops, where liberty is even more highly criminalized? From your comment I suspect you'd be right at home in North Korea.

      Funny how that argument can work both ways, isn't it- but America was supposedly founded upon "Jeffersonian" Rightful Liberty- so, basically YOU are the interloper and anti-American invader, and if anyone should have to find a "more suitable" place, it is those who want a police state, not those who advocate liberty. The thing is, I would be happy to leave you alone, to live as you see fit- including under any form of government you desire- even a communist enclave if that would make you feel better. Statists, on the other hand, can't bear to see anyone opt out of their disgusting "system", and would rather kill everyone else than live in peace.

      (For the record, Somalia isn't really a case of a stateless society- it is a case of a failed state, and is still suffering from the attempts to impose a state on people who don't want one. But individuals there are still better off now than under the states that have been imposed- unsuccessfully- on the Somali people. I recommend you read "The Law of the Somali", "Better off stateless", and "Somali 'Anarchy' Is More Orderly than Somali Government"- if you'd care to know what you're talking about.)