2. A collectivist believes the state may perform acts that are forbidden to individuals.
An individualist believes the state may do only what individuals have a right to do.
My quibble is that the maintenance of a system of justice is a legitimate function of government, up to and including capital punishment for capital crimes. I don't believe that function can be legitimately fulfilled by the individual.
I believe that my perspective on the matter agrees with that of our country's founders. That's a tough one for me to swallow, because in all other respects I'm an individualist.
2. A collectivist believes the state may perform acts that are forbidden to individuals.
An individualist believes the state may do only what individuals have a right to do.
My quibble is that the maintenance of a system of justice is a legitimate function of government, up to and including capital punishment for capital crimes.
I don't believe that function can be legitimately fulfilled by the individual.
Historically, when there is no justice system immediately available, individuals do indeed handle that function. Self defense, an eye for an eye, - has always been legitimate, and still is constitutionally speaking.
I believe that my perspective on the matter agrees with that of our country's founders. That's a tough one for me to swallow, because in all other respects I'm an individualist.
Where does our Constitution forbid self defense? If anything, it forbids infringements/prohibitions on such rights, and it tells fed/state/local governments that we cannot be deprived of life,liberty, or property without due process of [constitutional] law.