Susan Hogarth wrote: >>>> ... >>>> Last I heard Executive Outcomes didn't do charity work. Who will >>>> protect the natural rights of the poor? >>>> >>> ???! >>> >>> Governments don't 'do charity work', either. They transfer wealth >>> forcibly from a large group of people to a smaller group of people. >>> >> The assertion was that a mercenary group (Executive Outcomes) does a >> better job of protection than government. Perhaps it does. Yet how >> will those who cannot afford private security receive justice? >> > > How will those who can't afford 'public justice' get it? > > Perhaps have (a bit of) itdoled out to them in exchange for supporting > the thieves who provide it? > > How is that 'justice', exactly? > > Justice is a good like any other. There is no guarantee in this world > that you will be fed, or clothed, or recieve justice. That's not an > excuse for stealing, though. >
To me there's a difference between lacking food and clothing, non-success generally and other matters where the individual is frustrated by circumstance; and being victimized by the aggressive acts of others. The first matter is an individual concern, although charity is of course a virtue. The second is a concern we must confront cooperatively. I do not demand that each person is fed and clothed. However, I believe strongly that each and every person should receive equal justice, that is, equal protection from the aggression of others. Chris [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
