Well, "self-defence" means you can't force others, and you can't trick them.

If either are happening, then freedom has gone - you're being coerced, or you've been deceived.

If we choose to impose ourselves on others - to coerce them, or deceive them - on a basis other than self-defence, what basis would that be?

The problem I see in this is that if we go beyond self-defence, we're into the realm of "I think this is good, so I will now force you to do it", and the problems with that are self-evident, as we see today.

▲

palata 10 hours ago | parent [-]

I am not sure exactly what you are saying. If you are saying that we need regulations so that we can live with each other peacefully, I agree. But you seem to be against regulations.

So are you saying that everything should be allowed, and people just have to defend themselves? I don't get it.

	▲	casenmgreen 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		No - I've said nothing about how this idea of a basic rule should be done; so I've made no observations about regulations. What I would observe regarding regulations is that there must be an entity with the power to enforce regulations, which is to say, to coerce or deceive. If we imagine such an entity, and we imagine it acts only in defence of itself or others, then we could it seems to me be comfortable. If we imagine such an entity, and we imagine it acts for reasons other than defence of itself or others, then it seems to me we run into problems when Governments go bad, as with the current Trump administration.