Message from @Big T
Discord ID: 559507711058771989
I don't really like the libertarians view on violence. Because at some point they would have to use force as well (if it ever got big enough, which isn't likely).
@C1PHER Ya, many people do sadly. Lots of fools believe that no violence should ever be committed (even for good reasons).
I suppose you could argue that you can initiate violence in very special circumstances where you know the person you are violent against is about to be violent. Sort of a preemptive strike situation, which could definitely be abused, but I can't totally rule out as possible.
that works for me. the current legal system allows for that
the word imminent harm covers it
Yeah, libertarians are just wrong here
i dont think the libertarians are wrong. the nap can easily include this situation
^
our current legal system operates the same way
it is illegal to initiate force on someone, but it is legal to use force to prevent imminent bodily harm and/or death.
the key part is the word imminent
this allows for using force before the force is being used on you
this is where a lot of arguing in court would revolve around. was it actually imminent? what was the intent of the aggressor? etc. which is fine
maybe I'm just not creative enough in my thinking, but "imminent harm" usually means someone is already using force, right? I'd consider someone mugging me under the _threat_ of harm to have already initiated force
even if they've not yet harmed me
it means about to happen
so it is decided that it will happen, but the time scale is right before it actually happens.
mugging is theft
deprivation of property is illegal.
mugging uses both
the person is in close prox to you and is making his intent known that if property is not given to him, then harm will be brought.
i think perhaps the word force might get some hung up, its really acts of aggression, and force would be a subset of that
I wasn't talking about what Libertarians view on interpersonal violence.
My comment about them was to how they view the state/government and every action they take as immoral acts of violence.
yea well thats where it gets murky imo
and where im not completely on board with the ancap's argument
that seems more AnCap territory than typical libertarian
Nope, i deal with both often. And while it is true that ancaps are worst, its still in the same ballpark (tho i'm not saying all libertarians view it this way).
imo its because libertarians encompass a massive range of views
and they are continuous rather than discrete
one idea I've been mulling for a while that might cover that scenario is "if there's such a thing as justifiable homicide, could there also be justifiable theft?" Defining exactly what that is might get tricky, but I think it leaves room for a minimal government even if you consider taxes theft
hmm
still not sure if it really holds any water, but there it is
you would have to come up with another term for theft that is justifiable. such as acquisition of property that is not yours
such as to cover a debt
instead of money, you take property of value
and then work up from there
in the same idea that homicide is the killing of a human, but murder is the illegal killing of a human
If you have a large populist, they always end up forming some kind of state, in order to run this form of state, you need funds from the people inhabiting it (to what degree is where we can debate). Any cries out that taxes are theft means you don't understand humans and need to learn more.
right, thats why the no gov argument always seemed shaky to me