Do You Support the Initiation of Force?

[Rationalist]

Do you deny that it is immoral to initiate the use of force (through physical violence or fraud) against others?

WTF???? Where have you been? Welcome back, man!

To answer the question: I feel that a certain degree of coercion is necessary for civilization to thrive. Examples would be taxation, police power, and eminent domain (although this is often abused). But the way you phrased your question seems to indicate force between individuals, which is only morally acceptable when it is done to thwart another act of coercion. For example, if someone breaks into my house and I feel there is a threat, it is not immoral for me to kill the fucker.

 

[ironhead]

So are you advocating no taxation or a strictly voluntary taxation?

Precisely. I would be okay with voluntary taxes, though I doubt any state would tolerate such an arrangement for very long. This is essentially what happened with the Articles of Confederation.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

Precisely. I would be okay with voluntary taxes, though I doubt any state would tolerate such an arrangement for very long. This is essentially what happened with the Articles of Confederation.

So anything the society needs, roads, infrastructure, ect, would be paid for voluntarily?

I guess if you are ok with sagging bridges and dirts roads, it would work.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Precisely. I would be okay with voluntary taxes, though I doubt any state would tolerate such an arrangement for very long. This is essentially what happened with the Articles of Confederation.

so how about a toll on everything you use provided by the state?

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

Do you deny that it is immoral to initiate the use of force (through physical violence or fraud) against others?

depends on context. sometimes it's appropriate.

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

So, you would support the morality of someone walking up to you on the street, shoot you, and take your wallet.

strawman. 3 posts in.

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

Well, maybe you could help me out and clarify. It's a relatively simple moral question. You said that you deny the immorality of the initiation of the use of force. So, I simply applied it to an everyday situation.

you do realize that taxation involves the use of force and a threat of violence? right? you are seizing someones property possibly against their will, and threatening them with jail if they do not comply.

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

No, that completely misunderstands what morality is. If morality is not universally applicable, then it simply subjective preferences. This would be like saying that rape is wrong because you prefer it over not raping; that yellow is better than purple. Objective morality is universally applicable and demonstrable.

100% disagree.

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

Please explain why rape is wrong, if not because violence was initiated? Because you don't like it? If this is why, then it could be considered moral by the rapist who obviously does prefer to rape.

Yes... and?

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

Despite all of these sidebars which I have answered, I don't think anyone has actually answered the question:

Do you support the initiation of the use of force? Will you answer this question? I'm not Bill O'Reilly - it can be more than just "yes" or "no."

yes. sometimes I support the initiation of force. easy question. dumb thread.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

A "racket" is not subject to market discipline via competition and voluntary contracts; DRO's would most certainly be. Rackets can only exist with government protection.

Or if they decide to "cooperate" with each other and hide their own behavior.
NAH, that couldn't happen.

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

Precisely. I would be okay with voluntary taxes, though I doubt any state would tolerate such an arrangement for very long. This is essentially what happened with the Articles of Confederation.

this is better

 

[USFREEDOM911]

There's nothing biblical about social ostracism. I think that it would happen, though far, far less than people are jailed as they are now. Quite preferable.

So you believe that the MAJORITY always know what's best and what the MINORITY should comply with?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

You are a self-contained organism. If you deny that you own yourself, then you are saying that another person has a higher claim to your body than you. That is why rape, murder, assault, theft, and similar behavior is immoral. This isn't a new idea, it goes back to John Locke, at least.

"Every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has a right to, but himself." - John Locke



We can arrive at objective morality through logical demonstration. A rule governing behavior that can be equally applied to all could be considered universal morality. The non-aggression principle is not that different from the Golden Rule - and it can be applied equally to all.

Since you're "self contained", does that mean your body produces it's own food?

 

[PostmodernProphet]

People get robbed everyday. It is a simple application of the principle. Can you answer the question or no?

no, because in your scenario it would be wrong to use force to take someone's wallet, but it would be right to use force to prevent someone from taking your wallet....thus the answer is still both yes and no......

 

[PostmodernProphet]

on a national level.....imagine a country where the children are dying of starvation and neglect......the government refuses to permit foreigners to enter the country to provide care.....would it be moral to enter the nation by force to save the lives of the children.....

 

[ironhead]

no, because in your scenario it would be wrong to use force to take someone's wallet, but it would be right to use force to prevent someone from taking your wallet....thus the answer is still both yes and no......

Well, defending your property from the aggression of a mugger is not initiating force. It is self-defense.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

Well, defending your property from the aggression of a mugger is not initiating force. It is self-defense.

What about defending my intellectual property? If I create music or write a book, and someone buys one copy and then starts selling copies, they are stealing my property.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Well, defending your property from the aggression of a mugger is not initiating force. It is self-defense.

what about passive interference?....

 

[ironhead]

What about defending my intellectual property? If I create music or write a book, and someone buys one copy and then starts selling copies, they are stealing my property.

IP is fallacious. If I overhear you telling a friend about an idea you have, is the idea in my head your property? If I purchase a book, the ink on the pages is my property, just as much as the binding, etc.

The only way IP can be enforced (at least in my mind), is through the initiation of force via the state.