u-Bob

There's a difference between force and aggression.

Aggression = initiating the use of force against some one and violating that person's rights.

When someone commits an act of aggression, when he violates your property rights, he essentially gives up his own rights and you can use force to defend yourself/to retaliate.

Like I've said many times before. In a world without the State, there would still be crime. But instead of being forced to buy protection services from the State (the state essentially is a company that sells many services like protection), you would buy them from a private protection company you chose. Or you would defend yourself or you would form an alliance with some of your neighbors or some shopkeepers would hire protection to keep their streets safe (because safer streets would attract more customers) etc...

The only difference between the current system is that those private security companies would actually have an incentive to do a good job because otherwise they would loose clients. The State/Police don't care about their 'clients' because the State simply forces everyone to pay for their substandard services.


Like I said, the basic non-aggression principle suffices. It's what Bastiat called The Law. It's when Jefferson referred to when he wrote about inalienable rights. It's what Spooner called Natural Rights. It's what Hoppe called the Natural Order. It's what some like to call Rational Rights. It's the original meaning of "The Rule Of Law".

Google and Microsoft are private companies, they can use their property in any way they want. Personally I don't agree with a lot of the things Google does and stands for so I don't use their services, I don't use Gmail, I don't click their ads, I encourage other people to stop using them,...