My question today is concerning authority. I ask: how is authority ever justified? Let me frame my question. Let us allow that "authority" in a governmental sense is to stop the subjects from being murdered, pillaged, to stop violence, to stop thiefs, to moderate economics, etc. Now let me ask you this. If, say, a murderer thinks about killing his victim, but is ultimately unable to do so due to the various laws/punishments involved, the government has been "successful." They have deterred the murderer from committing the crime because of the legislation in place. In this sense, we can say that a government replaces "freedom" with "security". Essentially, the more totalitarian a government becomes, the more "freedom" is traded for "security". However, is it not also true that in the saving of the life of the victim, we have "murdered" the free will of the murderer? Why can authority, in essense, save the existance of one individual, while condeming the existance of another, even if that existance involves violence or crime? My question comes down to the following. Why is it that the life of the victim of the murderer should be any more valuable than his freedom? Say the government were to be abolished, prisons done away with; the murderer would achieve freedom of action and murder his victim. Why is this a bad thing? The victim is essentially in this instance becoming a martyr for anarchy - if we give up government, sure many will die, be raped, pillaged, and have their possessions stolen, but is this not all beneficial for the cause of freedom? The victim should, in the end, feel privelaged that they could give up their life for the freedom of another human being. Now, it is important to note that I recognise governments provide needed services to their subjects; my question is focusing solely on crime and punishment. Jack.