Message from @Big T
Discord ID: 559506488310366208
Controversial Opinion: Violence isn't evil, or good. It's the context, and the reason it was done that makes it evil, or good.
I think violence does have some natural degree of evil tied to it, since the situations where violence would be considered good are those where others are violent for an evil reason. Therefore it's a lesser of 2 evils situation.
I think the usual libertarian argument is that the _initiation_ of violence is immoral. Is there a situation where being the first to act violently could be considered morally good?
Otherwise, to use violence to protect oneself from an aggressor is considered moral under that logic
@Railingo That's shouldn't be controversial... As most with most things its situational.
and even what I said just reinforces the idea that it's situational
is there a group that considers violence to be an inherently evil act? I'm not sure that Railingo's opinion is so controversial
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.
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).
imo its because libertarians encompass a massive range of views