Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Help me Understand This

Discussion in 'Legal' started by BigG, Dec 23, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. BigG

    BigG Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    7,081
    Location:
    Dixieland
    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?
     
  2. bountyhunter

    bountyhunter member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2003
    Messages:
    3,421
    Location:
    Fascist-Fornia
    You missed the point

    Here is the quote:


    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.
     
  3. Series 70

    Series 70 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2003
    Messages:
    365
    Location:
    Minnesota
    I don't read that as being against self-defense. You are not the initiator of force if you are defending yourself or another.
     
  4. BigG

    BigG Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    7,081
    Location:
    Dixieland
    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:
     
  5. Jim March

    Jim March Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    8,732
    Location:
    SF Bay Area
    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.
     
  6. Leatherneck

    Leatherneck Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    2,545
    Location:
    No. Virginia and Northern Neck
    Jim
    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
     
  7. Jim March

    Jim March Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    8,732
    Location:
    SF Bay Area
    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.
     
  8. mercedesrules

    mercedesrules Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2003
    Messages:
    1,010
    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
     
  9. JohnBT

    JohnBT Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    13,232
    Location:
    Richmond, Virginia
    "...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
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page