Dear Aidan,

People who are outside the protection of the law (if even there is any law) are not necessarily dangerous - the only difference between them and you is that either they have not asked your particular group of people to protect them, or they did ask but that protection was refused. Perhaps they made different arrangements to protect themselves, or perhaps they prefer to turn their other cheek - nothing is wrong either way. On the other hand, even dangerous people are currently [and wrongly] protected by the law, thus there is no obvious relationship between dangerousness and being protected by laws.

Of course if someone is dangerous, then you take the necessary steps to defend yourself, your family and your group(s) against them - that's common sense.

Why would innocent people be lynched if they freely select such a group of people who agree to protect each other? After all, they wouldn't have selected that group had they not been convinced that it can protect them effectively! Laws are bad because they bypass common sense and innocent people can be trapped and punished for victimless technical breaches, while others who are dangerous and actually cause harm, cannot be removed from society due to other technicalities.

Becoming subject to laws for the sole reason of living in a particular land-area is monstrous - and the larger that land, the more monstrous it is. A person who harms nobody should not be subject to any laws and should not be told to leave their natural habitat just because some other people who call themselves "state" desire to control vast areas of land. Territories to not belong to states - they belong to the people (and other animals) who rightfully live on them.