Download this blogcast in MP3 Audio.
I was recently asked, whether it is justified to attack those who enact the State, in order to defend its victims. The enactors being the officials who make the decisions, and the grunts who attack the population.
After all, if the State was destroyed, then what of the handicapped? And who decides what is the crime & punishment of each Statist? Also, would they be imprisoned, or even executed?
|By James Harberson. Find more over at:|
I gave the following response:
Are you insinuating that every child & handicapped person is my responsibility? Because I would disagree. Charitable people help people in need... and if nobody cares, then that's just how people feel, and forcing them otherwise is enslavement.
Take an analogy, to better relate to these questions. If you saw someone attempting rape on a young girl, you would be morally correct in helping her defend herself. Even if you aren't the one being attacked, it is legitimate to help another in need, with their agreement. Let's assume the girl is shouting for help, to simplify things.
So, if a group of fascists (the State) are attacking people, then with the agreement of the victims, we have legitimacy in defending them, by attacking their aggressors (the State). And in the case of defending people, there is no obligation to do equal or less harm to the perpetrator!
Whether any act of defense is socially-acceptable, or judged as unsuitable, depends on the locals, entirely.