In case there is a confusion, let me emphasize that the dependency to which I am referring is a dependency on the existence of the fact that the militia can satisfy what the "necessary to the security of a free state" calls for and not necessary on being served by that satisfaction. In other words, even if you assume that there was the protection of a sufficiently powerful official army to a free state and nobody felt any need for a militia, my dependency reference would remain applicable because it is about the dependency on the fact not the service.
No comments:
Post a Comment