![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Libertarian Contradiction
Saturday, October 27th, 2001 08:59 pmThis just came to me...
Libertarians claim that the only legitimate function of a government is to prevent the initiation of force. (More or less.) However, most libertarians are adamant that people have a right to be as well armed as the government, so as be able to fight back should the government become corrupt and initiate force against them.
SO, if a party is better armed than the government, and is able to overcome government forces, what use is the government in preventing the initiation of force, if they'll just lose to the aggressors?
A libertarian government is thereby susceptible to a (large, forceful, and well organized) coup, which could then institute a non-libertarian government.
(This came about, I think, as I was thinking of how a government/social system can maintain itself.)
Libertarians claim that the only legitimate function of a government is to prevent the initiation of force. (More or less.) However, most libertarians are adamant that people have a right to be as well armed as the government, so as be able to fight back should the government become corrupt and initiate force against them.
SO, if a party is better armed than the government, and is able to overcome government forces, what use is the government in preventing the initiation of force, if they'll just lose to the aggressors?
A libertarian government is thereby susceptible to a (large, forceful, and well organized) coup, which could then institute a non-libertarian government.
(This came about, I think, as I was thinking of how a government/social system can maintain itself.)
