"protect another individual's right" Is not protecting one's safety

safety of liberty and rights.

Which are there to cater safety of citizens to some degree

Debateable

How so?

The purspose of the government is to protect my RIGHT to self defense, and the defense of others.

We could have a judicial system with absolutely no police, and it would work the same legally

Police are just a delagation of the use of force

But how shall that protect my natural rights?

That's your own damn job

But first you have to serve the state

Or pay taxes

either way but yeah

The governmnet is essentailly a giant insurance company/private arbitration

My natural right needs to be protected as well. How then should the government protect your right to your property in case of a foreign invasion?

@ᚴᚬᚾᛁᚾᚴ ᚱᚢᚦᚴᚨᚱ (Hrothgar) I take up arms? Like my constitution demands that I do

It's called the draft

@Fitzydog @ᚴᚬᚾᛁᚾᚴ ᚱᚢᚦᚴᚨᚱ (Hrothgar)

What is a natural right?

@Fulcrum010 That which you're willing to die to defend.

Mhm well. I get your point but it sounds very anarchist to me.

@ᚴᚬᚾᛁᚾᚴ ᚱᚢᚦᚴᚨᚱ (Hrothgar) That's called liberalism

I am not willing to cede the sole responsiblity of protecting myself to myself without any government intervention.

Such a course is not pragmatic at all.

Define beat because A idribhunna in arabic does not refer to breating as in koing your wife and in hadith it is commanded with a tiny toothbrush called a siwak right before divorce plus Aisha herself said the Prophet saww never hit any woman in his life or any servant plus he told off a man for beating his wife hard in another hadith tradition @ᚴᚬᚾᛁᚾᚴ ᚱᚢᚦᚴᚨᚱ (Hrothgar)

@ᚴᚬᚾᛁᚾᚴ ᚱᚢᚦᚴᚨᚱ (Hrothgar) Then you're a god damned commie

@Fitzydog
I can be willing to die to defend my right if killing people I don't like.

That don't make it a right tho....

@ᚴᚬᚾᛁᚾᚴ ᚱᚢᚦᚴᚨᚱ (Hrothgar) anyone that doesn’t agree with strato is a “god damned commie”

@Fulcrum010 It is to you. How long will you defend it though?

@Deleted User No, he just disagreed that it's the individuals job to protect themselves.

That's fucking retarded

Ok fashie

If you're not the solely responsibile person for defending yourself, then you don't have ownership over yourself. Which means you are no better than property.

@Fitzydog
It's not because it is to me, that it is a natural right.

It's not because I have the right to suck people's blood the this is an actual right

You might have seen a few hot takes but I doubt you've been called literally just as bad as timothy McVeigh because you disagree that rump should be held responsible for wars he has actively protested simply because some soldiers in those wars like Trump, this actually happened

@Fulcrum010 Natural rights are a complicated thing, and I'm trying to help redefine it for the plebs who disregard it because 'muh atheism'

@Fitzydog Okay so you understand that Hobbes argued that the role of the government is to protect one individual from another and classical liberals have time and time accepted that notion.

@Fitzydog
You are not doing a good job

I'm trying to start a dialog, and you're just flinging shit

Me? Oks....

Well, except these wife beating newbs

@Fulcrum010 he’s the male chole

I am genuinely open to suggestions, go ahead and make me understand how wanting a classical liberal notion is a communism. @Fitzydog