If I make a law saying it's illegal for you to eat, I'm initiating force under a made up law, which is what governments do. A clear example was when slavery was legal. In modern days, taxes. The slave owners didn't pay the taxes we pay today. People have grown accustomed to living under violence

@FocusOn1 yeah... that would not be a just law.
Indeed, any Law that is enforced against somebody who took no action to invoke it, is an unjust law.
Government has no legitimate authority to act on its own initiative.
The word for that is Tyranny.

The income tax is a good example.
It is clearly unconstitutional, which is why closet-Communists needed to amend the Constitution in 1913 to get it established.
Now presumed (incorrectly) to be "legitimized" by the 16th Amendment... it still clearly violates the 4th: i.e., "The right of the people to be secure in their [...] effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures...",
and the 5th: "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

And since neither of those were amended or repealed, the ratification of the 16th was still, clearly unconstitutional.
And remains so to this day.

More important than the fact that it is technically "unconstitutional", is the reason that it is unconstitutional: because it's simply wrong.
The income tax violates the cornerstone principal of the Framework described by the Constitution; that of the absolute Sovereignty of the Individual.
Even if the Constitution did allow it, which it doesn't... that would have been a flaw in the Constitution, not the principal.

The "Right" gets that.
The "Left" doesn't.
But... that depends entirely upon how you define "Left" and "Right". As the terms are commonly used they're just meaningless, and therefore useless for any sort of analysis.

@rway you cannot have freedom and violence at the same time.

@rway when you use initiatory force or violence, you take away freedom. That's what these leftie commies don't seem to understand. It's hypocrisy to support initiatory force and then proclaim yourself as protector.

@FocusOn1 How do you propose to protect people's freedom (from violence) without using violence in response?

Government is Force. That's all it really is.
It's sole legitimate purpose is to protect every individual's Rights from one another.
Accordingly: it is only rightfully invoked when one person is violating another's Rights. In which case, the "force" of government has been initiated by the violator.
That's why Government has no authority to act on its own. It has no agency of its own. It exists as an agent of each individual, to secure & protect their rights, purely so they don't have to do it on their own. That's "civilized" society.

You're right. If somebody supports initiatory Government force, and proclaims themselves a "protector" of rights... they're just wrong.
The sad part is, many of them sincerely don't understand what they're getting wrong...

@FocusOn1 If you are not willing to commit violence to protect your freedom -- well, just go get fixed now since you are already useless to the rest of the human race.

@bobbo666 violence is only to be used to protect against initiatory force. Using initiatory force actually deprives people of freedom.

@FocusOn1 about your list...

Protecting the border is not an initiation of Force.
Your arguable "right to travel", does not supersede other people's right to secure their private property against trespass. The same is true at an international level.
Any enforcement action is initiated by the actions of the trespasser.

Preventing abortion is not an initiation of Force.
The threat to the fetus' right to live is the initiatory action, to which any legal consequence would be a response.

Involuntary taxes are an initiation of Force.
But, government needs to gather operating revenue somehow, if we are to have government at all.
Since we decided to have one, we need to fund it. The only way to do that without violating anybody's rights in the process, is through a consumption (sales) tax.
(see: FairTax.org )

@rway if we define a person as someone who was born, not as a fetus. You could say using a condom is initiating force against the sperm. When you cross a border, it is not private property.

@FocusOn1 If we define a person to suit our own ambitions, then we are the tyrants. That's what slaveowners and Nazis did. Who counts as a "human" is not up to us.
Sperm doesn't have human rights.
When you cross a border, you voluntarily subject yourself to the jurisdiction of whomever controls the land you just trespassed.