[oleganza]

How about before talking about the size of the government, proving when and how using threat of murder is moral? Because government has "legal" and real power to kill you if you don't do what you are told. If you cannot prove it as good as some math theorem, then why don't you find some other ways to solve problems before killing people? Why not being able to find a peaceful solution justifies murderous solutions? Do you threaten others with death to believe you when you cannot prove your point peacefully and reasonably?

[colanderman]

Because government has "legal" and real power to kill you if you don't do what you are told.

No they don't. Not at all. You're making stuff up.

Ignoring extrajudicial killings ordered by the Obama administration (which I believe to be immoral and illegal) and states with the death penalty, the government does not have the legal right to kill citizens for breaking the law.

If you violently try to resist arrest, yes, you will likely be at least tasered (best case) or shot (worst case). But it's disingenuous to ask for a government which does not respond violently when threatened with violence.

[baddox]

Don't hold your breath for a "proof" involving morality.

[oleganza]

I don't argue for use of violence and therefore I don't need to provide any justification for it. It's people who suggest laws and regulations as solutions need to prove why they can do that. Without a proof, it's just bullying and mob rule.

Why is burden of proof is not on me? Because I don't stop the discussion by taking out a gun. If you don't agree with me you are always able to go away, or tell everybody to not talk to me because I'm not nice to others. No one kills anyone, everybody is free to agree to disagree. But whenever somebody gets angry that I disagree and takes out weapons, then it's up to him to explain why he is doing that.

[colanderman]

Why is burden of proof is not on me?

Because you're arguing that representatives of the government's executive branch should not be able to use force to defend themselves when threatened with force. That violates the golden rule, which, being core to many moralities, places the burden of proof on you.

[oleganza]

Don't you think, the representatives and their supporters need to justify their use of violence first? If not, then I can also end this discussion by killing you without justification.

Example 1. Everyone thinks the Earth is flat, but I don't think so. Since everyone's senses indicate that it is flat and my idea is not self-evident, it is me who must provide sensual evidence. E.g. by showing that the horizon is limited and ships go under.

Example 2. Many people think the god exists, but senses do not provide any common (objective) perception. More than that, if you show them that by behaving badly you don't get mysteriously evaporated, it's now their job to prove how and why the god exists.

In other words, me and other people see a lot of evidence that some people kill other people, but we do not see a solid reason why some have a right to do so, while others do not. Then someone comes and says "it is democracy". Very well, but it is very far from being satisfactory answer and it has even more moral questions. E.g. how sudden increase of 50% audience by 1 person reverts their morality? Or what happens if older voters died and new were born? What are the "borders" within which you can use democracy, but outside - it's another jurisdiction? All of this stuff is 100% imaginary and outside of realm of sensual evidence. So it's your job to prove that these imaginary concepts have any ground. Quarks are imaginary, we cannot feel them directly or indirectly. So it's up to physicists to prove to anyone else that this imaginary model is useful at organizing all their real sensual knowledge in a coherent manner. And if they derive from quark theory that they can kill people - they have to prove it first.

[colanderman]

Don't you think, the representatives and their supporters need to justify their use of violence first? If not, then I can also end this discussion by killing you without justification.

No you can't, because I have not acted violently against you.

The state will not act violently toward a citizen in excess of the violence that citizen has displayed toward it: the government will not kill you unless you resist with deadly force its lesser efforts at punishment.

You must also keep in mind that violence need not be physical. (If you ignore non-physical violence; e.g. pollution or speeding or libel; you will have a very undesirable society in which to live.) Laws (purportedly; actuality may be less ideal) exist to prevent what society at large has deemed to be some form of violent intrusion on their safety/privacy/liberty/etc. Therefore, if you have broken a (just) law against some person, you have committed some form of violence against them, and violence (generally in the form of moving you from your home to a prison cell) is justified in their defense.