The Cognitive Dissonance of the Simple Issue at Hand

Almost everyone thinks that self-defense is a natural right. We cheer when we see a bank robber get blasted by the private security guard upon entry into a bank; or when the purse-snatcher is thwarted by a bad chick packing an equalizer; or when home security footage reveals a homeowner put a stop to the invasion of their home; etc.

That's everyone's natural theory of justice: for victims to receive restitution by the aggressor of their bodies or physical property because it was a property rights violation; and for that it is the right of the aggressed-against to defend themselves against attackers. That's the legal theory most of us hold within. Hence that even the State pretends this is the theory it upholds, relieving property-owners and bodily-owners of any charges for using violence in self-defense.

Yet this is an immediate cause for contradiction for anyone to claim otherwise, i.e., that "government should do X", since government is founded upon the very aggression they adamantly oppose for individuals; and this aggression must precede any possible offerings of something supposedly good; our production is antecedent to the State's theft.

Arguing for anything other than non-aggression—in which I am in agreement with Hoppe that this is a performative contradiction—is morally indefensible, and runs contrary to everyone's natural theory regarding who is the aggressor or victim, i.e., who invaded who's property rights.

What you're saying when you suggest any government action is that they should use aggression against innocent people; and therefore that self-defense is indeed not a right, since everything the State does is ultimately backed with guns and cages to compel people to obey their orders. Resisters and dissidents, i.e., people practicing their right to self defense, must be shot.

Stop being a hypocrite. If your natural theory of property is that we all own ourselves (which is self-evident), and by extension own those scarce goods in which we have originally and voluntarily appropriated for ourselves, then there's no excuse why a class of people, calling themselves a "government", should be permitted to earn their income by the only possible alternative: that of being non-contractors to said resources, thereby expropriating the producers and natural owners of property.