24A049 Force, in the ZGS by Jim Davies, 12/17/2024  

It follows from the Self Ownership Axiom that everyone is free to do anything (s)he wishes, and therefore nothing to oblige anyone else to submit to force. So, after that's been learned and hence a zero government society begun, the only krime will be to initiate force; and the person so threatened will be justified in using force to resist and end it.

There is some semblance of this simple and sensible principle even in today's mangled excuse for a justice system: homicide is excusable for example when done in self-defense. The onus rests on the killer, however, to prove that the defense was needed - that the threat against him was credible.

In the ZGS too, if the responsive force used is greater than is needed for self defense, the original attacker will have grounds to sue, for damage suffered. There will, then as now, be a tipping point. The non-aggression principle has to be reasonably measured.

An interesting case came to my notice, to illustrate this - in today's courts. An Army veteran called Chad Wallin-Reed took his family to a remote cabin in the wilds of California for the Independence Day weekend in 2013 but they were troubled by visiting vehicles, with riders out for mischief or worse. They stole some lamps. On the second such visit Chad fired a warning shot, then gave chase in his truck and shot for real when the road ran out. The local paper tells the story; two were injured and one, Rory McGuire, died.

Chad claimed that during the 7-mile chase someone in the pursued car shot at him, so he was returning fire. All the survivors insisted that there had not been a gun in their car; Chad was coloring the truth. In any case after the visitors had left his property they did not pose a threat; he had been afraid, not least for his family, but was pursuing vengeance rather than removing a danger.

Had this occurred in a ZGS, Chad would have been found liable for the death and injuries, for the force he used was clearly excessive. When compensation had been paid, however, that would have ended the matter.

In the government's court, however, it didn't end that way. Chad was found guilty of murder, and sentenced to "84 years to life" - whatever that ridiculous penalty means for real. Maybe the judge added up the prison years that could be pinned to the charges of attempted murder, then added some for the one actual murder, and so fixed the minimum of 84 years. Chad will be 120 before becoming eligible for parole. Obviously, the government judge doesn't like gun-owners.

The case shows nicely the difference between justice (restituting the injured, to the extent feasible) and vengeance (as in today's government monopoly.) The latter has left McGuire's parents both sorrowful and uncompensated except by the unhealthy satisfaction that their son's killer is also suffering, and Chad's family (a loving wife and three young, delightful children) grieving for an absent father - who is being forced to live out a meaningless existence among the dregs of Californian society. He was (as I see it) at fault, and should rightly have been ordered to pay compensation; but the kids did nothing wrong at all.

Minarchists favor a drastic reduction in the scope of government, but say it should be retained for national defense and the provision of justice. The case of CA v. Wallin-Reed shows how very shallow is that view, though there was a time when I held it myself. But today, if I could wave a magic wand I'd demolish government starting with its sick imitation of a justice system.

But there's no need for magic wands. When TOLFA has done its good work of re-education so that nobody will work for any part of government, all of it will fade away like a very bad dream.