Kevin Bjornson wrote:
BH) "...enforcing a due-process-observing monopoly on retaliatory force" (BH
KB) The US does not have a monopoly of retaliatory force, even within it's territory (KB
I of course mean that the U.S. claims such a formal monopoly on retaliatory force, and not that it has magical power to stop every act of retribution. :-)
KB) I don't know if this counts as a "substantive difference" or a quibble. But I suspect it indicates a fundamental difference in our method if not goal. Two points: is and ought. (KB
Yes, I've detected some hints in your comments that you believe Ms. Rand solved the centuries-old http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is_ought_problem. If you want to debate that, I suggest you submit a rewrite of the Wikipedia article on the Naturalistic Fallacy and then see what happens. :-) Suffice it to say that I think Rand missed the mark by a wide margin, and that those in need of more ethical certitude than a godless universe gives them should investigate Fred Foldvary's Universal Ethic.
KB) I do applaud your improvement on the usual formulation, "retaliatory" force instead of simply "force". (KB
Only a newbie would define away the right to self-defense. :-) I'd prefer the applause for my extended formulation in which I include "any force initiation deemed legitimate" in the monopoly. I agree with Roy Childs contra Rand on the question Does Zero-Aggression Absolutism Imply Anarchism?
KB) Neither should governments necessarily have a monopoly of retaliatory force. Because that would preclude both revolutions and liberations. (KB
The monopoly is not absolutely normative. A healthy respect for the principle of Rule of Law indeed does not preclude the right of revolution/liberation.
