The Sort Of Dependence That Results From

Thus, If There Exists A Law Which Sanctions Slavery Or Monopoly, Oppression Or Robbery, In Any Form Whatever, It Must Not Even Be Mentioned. For How Can It Be Mentioned Without Damaging The Respect Which It Inspires? Still Further, Morality And Political Economy Must Be Taught From The Point Of View Of This Law; From The Supposition That It Must Be A Just Law Merely Because It Is A Law. Another Effect Of This Tragic Perversion Of The Law Is That It Gives An Exaggerated Importance To Political Passions And Conflicts, And To Politics In General.

If Every Person Has The Right To Defend - Even By Force - His Person, His Liberty, And His Property, Then It Follows That A Group Of Men Have The Right To Organize And Support A Common Force To Protect These Rights Constantly. Thus, Since An Individual Cannot Lawfully Use Force Against The Person, Liberty, Or Property Of Another Individual, Then The Common Force - For The Same Reason - Cannot Lawfully Be Used To Destroy The Person, Liberty, Or Property Of Individuals Or Groups.

Property Does Not Exist Because There Are Laws, But Laws Exist Because There Is Property.

It Is Not True That The Legislator Has Absolute Power Over Our Persons And Property, Since They Pre-exist, And His Work Is Only To Secure Them From Injury. It Is Not True That The Mission Of The Law Is To Regulate Our Consciences, Our Ideas, Our Will, Our Education, Our Sentiments, Our Works, Our Exchanges, Our Gifts, Our Enjoyments. Its Mission Is To Prevent The Rights Of One From Interfering With Those Of Another, In Any One Of These Things.

Since No Individual Acting Separately Can Lawfully Use Force To Destroy The Rights Of Others, Does It Not Logically Follow That The Same Principle Also Applies To The Common Force That Is Nothing More Than The Organized Combination Of The Individual Forces?