jeremycady on Nostr: Lol. I enjoy the dump. And maybe it is a matter of semantics. I appreciate your ...

Lol. I enjoy the dump.

And maybe it is a matter of semantics.

I appreciate your thoughts on the state of "null".

Laws that I would consider to be more legitimate than others are those that weave through the crossing of rights. There are real cases where humans may interact, be working within their sphere of individual rights, but conflicting with another's.

And I separate humans from creatures. This is likely to to my religious beliefs (where I believe natural law comes from).

I respect other creatures, and creation, but I only apply rights to humans.

Very true that others deem it necessary, for their own posterity, to coerce others. Bastiat speaks how humans tend to move to the actions that require the least amount of energy and how he gets to discussion of "legal plunder".

But even still, is one is strong enough to take someone's bread, rather than make their own, both the aggressor and the victim know and understand that the action is evil, immoral, and a violation of the rights of the victim.

As Locke would put it, the aggressor places himself at war with the victim and therefore the victim has the right to defend themselves against said actions.

The victim may not have the strength to wage war against the aggressor. But, to your point, they can enlist the help of others.

Chiefly, that's were the whole idea of government comes from.

But maybe, and to your point, this is where another general law of humans comes into effect. Power corrupts.