Help me Understand This


PDA






BigG
December 23, 2003, 01:53 PM
It is immoral to initiate force or fraud against any sentient being.

Anarchy - or so it is called by those who believe in the so-called non-agression principle.

My question is, what morality are we appealing to when we all go tribal and some guy knocks your brain out with a club? Does it matter about morality when you are lying there dead? What moral superiority are we trying to demonstrate with this inanity?

If you enjoyed reading about "Help me Understand This" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
bountyhunter
December 23, 2003, 02:02 PM
Here is the quote:


It is immoral to initiate force or fraud against any sentient being.

See the word INITIATE?

That means to be the aggressor, ie start the use of force. If someone else uses force against you first, it is completely moral and appropriate to respond with whatever force is necessary to protect yourself.

Series 70
December 23, 2003, 02:06 PM
I don't read that as being against self-defense. You are not the initiator of force if you are defending yourself or another.

BigG
December 23, 2003, 02:12 PM
Initiate

Didn't miss the point. Was trying to maximize my utility as a sovereign individual and this thug bashed my brains out with a club. How do I retaliate when I'm lying there dead. Somebody who drafted the principle missed the point. Not everybody or even most are going to play fair, imho. :uhoh:

Jim March
December 23, 2003, 02:53 PM
Group defense is still allowed for under the Non-Aggression Principle. If you nail the SOB who just killed your friend/relative/whatever, that isn't initiation either.

Theorists in this area commonly envision private security companies who are paid a small monthly fee in part to investigate and make arrests when you are the victim of a crime, regardless of the crime and post-mortem if necessary.

Another thing: not everybody who believes in the NAP is in favor of "zero government" (Anarcho-Capitalists). Both Libertarians and libertarians (not a repeat!) tend to believe that arbitrating and solving NAP violations is more or less the ONLY proper role for a limited government.

Libertarian thought says that modest property taxes and import duties would be enough to pay for courts and police, and a small core of a professional military to train and support the majority of the nation's defense forces, a citizen militia.

Leatherneck
December 23, 2003, 03:01 PM
Jima small core of a professional military to train and support the majority of the nation's defense forces, a citizen militia. I've got a huge problem with that concept. The U.S. is widely perceived (currently) as the only super-power, largely because of our military forces. When you see how those forces are trained, equipped, and sustained today, you cannot seriously envision any comparable/competitive force comprised solely of citizen-militiapersons. Any medium-sized country with the ambition could mount a real military force that could wipe us from the planet in short order, whether with WMDs, a naval blockade, or long-range air power.

Many of the other small-guv ideas are immensely appealing, but the idea of a viable citizen militia is fit only for some romantic concept of days long past.

TC
TFL Survivor

Jim March
December 23, 2003, 03:31 PM
A lot depends on whether or not we want to do "foreign adventures" anymore.

Granted, we need a counter-threat to WMDs. No argument. The boomer subs and the infrastructure to protect them are a start.

But carrier task forces?

Again: do we need to be screwin' around overseas like that? 'Cuz that's ALL they're good for.

mercedesrules
December 23, 2003, 05:07 PM
(Leatherneck) the idea of a viable citizen militia is fit only for some romantic concept of days long past.

Switzerland - pop. - 7 million

What if all (let's say even 100 million) citizens, in addition to their M-16s and Berettas, had a supply of RPGs, and shoulder-launch ground-to-air missiles? Who would want to try an invasion?

MR

JohnBT
December 23, 2003, 06:36 PM
"...small core of a professional military to train and support the majority of the nation's defense forces, a citizen militia."

I guess it depends on the definiton of small core and how much training the militia gets.

Isn't the National Guard some sort of viable citizen militia? They're trained and they work with the full-time professionals.

When I think of militia I'm not thinking of my buddies' with their duck hunting gear riding around in pickup trucks.

John

If you enjoyed reading about "Help me Understand This" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!