|
|
|
Why Democracies RULE Should a larger group have the right to initiate force on a smaller group by virtue of their majority? Put more simply, do two people walking down the street have the right to assault and rob a single individual simply because they are a bigger group? The answer should be an emphatic no, unless you subscribe to the bromide of "Might is Right"—in which case you need not look far back in history to witness the horrific consequences of accepting such a premise. It does not matter whether the group initiates force directly or elects representatives to initiate force on their behalf. The principle is that no individual or group, or representatives of a group can legitimately initiate force on an individual. What right, then, is there to the use of force for an individual? Retaliatory self-defence! This is true also for a government. The proper function of a government is to uphold and protect the individual rights of that country's citizens, and in no way violate these rights. It is only in such a society where the initiation of force is not tolerated that peace and prosperity can flourish to the fullest extent. The only way to protect peace is to promote freedom among men. The only way to protect freedom among men is to limit the powers of the organisation with a monopoly over physical force. The only way to limit the power of government to the best of my knowledge is through a constitution. This brings us to our present problem. Currently Peter Dunne is heading a government enquiry as to relevance of a revised constitution for New Zealand. Is this not the most important time to have our message heard?! This is the most opportune time to for us to throw New Zealand into the future like a javelin in the arms of an Olympic champion. Discuss this Article (5 messages) |