Attention

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not represent our advertisers

Wednesday, February 26, 2014

Dear New York Times, Self-Defense Is Not Vigilantism

Over at the New York Times ”Opinionator” blog, Firmin DeBrander, an associate professor at the Maryland Institute College of Art, takes issue with a post I wrote last year outlining the biblical and natural-law right of self-defense. My argument was rather simple: From the Noahic Covenant to the New Testament, there were ample biblical examples of self-defense being not only permitted but in some cases actually mandated. I also – borrowing from Jim Lindgren’s excellent work at the Volokh Conspiracy — quoted John Locke for the proposition that the right of self defense wasn’t just a biblical right but a right located in natural law.

This is a critical conversation. If the right of self-defense predates and supersedes the state itself, then the circumstances where the state can abrogate that right are limited indeed. In fact, the right of self-defense includes a right of self-defense against the state itself, when the state attempts to harm its citizens.

More

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Self defense is a divine right. When evil reigns the right is taken away. Blood has to be shed to restore the right. That is the way it has been since human government was instituted. Or as Thomas Jefferson put it "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."