The argument for a limited government does not deny the right to self-defense. In a free society, however, if an individual rationally believes that he or she has been aggrieved by actions taken by others in the name of "self-defense," then that person has the right to seek review and possible reversal through the government. Suppose, for example, that despite the presence of a proper and effective government, certain individuals chose irrationally to turn to an alternative private defense agency X. Suppose further that agency X were to take actions of an invasive (rather than defensive) nature against individual Y. Would Y not have the right to turn to the government for redress of that injustice? Would the government not be justified in examining the case and rectifying it by force if appropriate? If the government properly acts against agency X to uphold Y's property rights, then that action constitutes a valid moral realization of the principle of self-defense, not a repudiation of it. To decry that action—or to call it an "intervention" into a "free market"—is to demonstrate a profound misunderstanding of the concepts of rights, free market, and defense. If we accept the existence of an ultimate standard of justice and the right to take defensive action in accordance with that standard, then we must sanction such governmental actions, thus acknowledging a just government as the final arbiter of the use of force, that is, as a government (as defined in the Glossary).