In this context, the word "privilege" is just a term of art. The question is whether or not you have a right to hit somebody. In the general, the answer is "no." But, if you apprehend unwelcome contact, then the law will permit you to use force - even to be the first one to use force.
-- The very idea that self-defense is "a privelege" subverts common law as it has stood for centuries ... --
I don't know what term of art was used say in 1400, regarding the use of force. At any rate, the law says essentially the same thing you do, the use of physical violence in self defense is justifiable.
Disagree with this. As Rush Limbaugh says, "words mean things", and the definition of the word 'privilege' has a specific meaning. A 'privilege' can be withdrawn by the entity which grants it, at any time, and for any reason.
The assertion that "self defense is a privilege" is inherently wrong on two counts. It assumes that the *privilege* of self-defense is granted by government, and secondly, that government may withdraw that privilege whenever it sees fit to do so, with no recourse.
Self defense is a *right* under both natural, and common law, and as I stated, under Blackstone, a right is defined as "a just and lawful claim". World of difference there...
the infowarrior