Message from @Big T
Discord ID: 559508891314946069
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.
as well has threats of violence are 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).
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
it seems at that point the anarcho-primativilsts make the most sense
I never got into VTM, only played it a few times a a couple of friends in college while waiting for our next class to start but god damn. It seems like lost their balls like most people in the video game or table top industries.
I've never played any of that, but it is sad every time these things happen (hopefully its not to big in the new game).
Vampire the Requiem is way better.