What, then, is law? It is the collective organization
of the individual right to lawful defense.
Each of us has a natural right — from God — to defend
his person, his liberty, and his property. These are
the three basic requirements of life, and the
preservation of any one of them is completely dependent
upon the preservation of the other two. For what are
our faculties but the extension of our individuality?
And what is property but an extension of our faculties?
If every person has the right to defend even by force —
his person, his liberty, and his property, then it
follows that a group of men have the right to organize
and support a common force to protect these rights
constantly. Thus the principle of collective right —
its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on
individual right. And the common force that protects
this collective right cannot logically have any other
purpose or any other mission than that for which it
acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot
lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or
property of another individual, then the common force —
for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to
destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals
or groups.
Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases,
contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to
defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say
that force has been given to us to destroy the equal
rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting
separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights
of others, does it not logically follow that the same
principle also applies to the common force that is
nothing more than the organized combination of the
individual forces?
If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than
this: The law is the organization of the natural right
of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common
force for individual forces. And this common force is
to do only what the individual forces have a natural
and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties,
and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to
cause justice to reign over us all.
Now I don't agree with his appeal to "God" as the justification for the inherent nature of the right to self-defense, but his basic argument is sound.
Let's not kid ourselves... Democracy is no perfect ideal to aspire after. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
Let's also consider what Bastiat had to say[1]:
Now I don't agree with his appeal to "God" as the justification for the inherent nature of the right to self-defense, but his basic argument is sound.[1]: http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html#SECTION_G004