Freedomain Radio

 I can't help but feel that the concept of surrogate self-defense can become a kind of slippery slope (imagine the state saying "this is for your protection"). While it's probibly not immoral to help others who are under attack, it still feels a bit......iffy. Anyone feel like trying to figure out what I'm thinking of? XD

Without more details this is the best i can do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_racket

Lol, not quite.

Perhaps you could put into words how the state provides surrogate self-defense? If Im catching your drift

Krof_Gninut:

 I can't help but feel that the concept of surrogate self-defense can become a kind of slippery slope (imagine the state saying "this is for your protection"). While it's probibly not immoral to help others who are under attack, it still feels a bit......iffy. Anyone feel like trying to figure out what I'm thinking of? XD

Could you give an argument against the concept of surrogate self-defense?  Also, you say it "feels....iffy" -- is there an emotion behind that?  What's the emotional reaction?

Greg Minton:

Krof_Gninut:

 I can't help but feel that the concept of surrogate self-defense can become a kind of slippery slope (imagine the state saying "this is for your protection"). While it's probibly not immoral to help others who are under attack, it still feels a bit......iffy. Anyone feel like trying to figure out what I'm thinking of? XD

Could you give an argument against the concept of surrogate self-defense?  Also, you say it "feels....iffy" -- is there an emotion behind that?  What's the emotional reaction?

I mean, it's a problem that is probibly solved by following the complete UPB framework. But I guess it's similar to the state's response to terrorism: destroying freedom to protect freedom. Or perhaps a crusader who "saves" his victims before killing them.

I still dont understand the question.