When used to deprive someone of control over his life, liberty, or property, the role of physical force is to render the victim’s mind irrelevant. Coercive physical force targets the mind.
This is an excellent article IMO. Particularly relevant to me after my discussions with Todd and Nuke on how I believe religion to promote anti-freedom ideology. (see http://blog.libertarian.org.au/discussion/ comments 161 – 184). My argument was basically that religion encourages and promotes tall poppy syndrome.
The article “Is religion anti-freedom?” focuses on free speech and the purpose of the protection of free speech. Paul explains why defamation and fraud are rightfully illegal. He also comments on the recent non-binding UN resolution “passed by the U.N. General Assembly which calls upon the world to make legal measures to require respect for religion, tolerance for religious beliefs and practices; laws to prohibit the stereotyping” of “sacred persons” and religions””
Paul concludes by arguing that in order to protect religions from defamation (per se), “our governments would, in effect, be outlawing reason, rational action, and personal happiness” ……… “I therefore conclude that we need no law prohibiting the defamation of religion. No law can prohibit the impossible.”
Overall I found the article very interesting because the reasoning in the article is not common and not widely discussed in the wider community.