What is the moral basis for self-defense to be an exception to the non agreession principle?

toSTONEiGO · 2012-05-24T21:46:04.281831+00:00

You've got good answers. It's not that self-defense allows you to "attack people back who are attacking you". Rather that the aggressive action in itself can morally be stopped by any agent; yourself included. Aggression is always a no-no.

europeanLiberal · 1 day

Bob Murphy has some fun with this

ahtr · 1 day

Yeah, exactly. "So what's the difference between a government that doesn't represent me, and a dictatorship that I have no say in?" It's by definition an external agency.

It's funny also how here they would implicitly accept that a state is capable of crime. Meaning that it has no magical ability to decide on it's own legitimacy, merely by writing some "laws".

ahtr · 1 day

It'd be interesting to ask a statist if the citizens of a democracy are responsible for the crimes of the state. They have to be if it's supposed be enacting the "will of the people". (If no, then, it's nothing but a rogue organization claiming that you owe it some money and you can periodically elect it's leaders.)

rob777 · 1 day

It's a scam designed to make you complicit in the crimes of the state.

Evolutionfire · 2 days

Okay, good scenario. So let's say you're walking in the rain and stumble upon two identical caves, deciding to sleep in one of them. However: you're given the information that one of them is a natural cave, and the other is 100% man-made.

Does this information factor at all in your choice?
If you're not told which cave is which, does that give you any feeling of unease? Of being morally "in the wrong", by deciding to sleep in either one?

Evolutionfire · 2 days

There is now an empty house, that you built once, and abandoned, that no one is ever supposed to touch, because you made it once?

Don't you feel this to be an entitlement mentality? That when somebody is not using his own work (like a house), that he cannot decide what to do with it?

That house only exists because of the creator's labor. Why are you "owed" use of it? Why not make your own house?

Scottzkee · 3 days

The only people you're really helping by railing against inflation are those that buried a pile of dollar bills in their backyard, and given that the circulation of money in the economy is what creates jobs, I'm not sure if that's an activity we care about encouraging anyways.

Are Huey & Co from the comic not entitled to the purchasing power of their piggy bank money?
If circulation of money creates wealth, wouldn't we be doing so if I bought something from you and you bought it right back? Do we want jobs for jobs sake?

meoxu7 · 5 days

it would be justified for a starving person to steal bread

If the sole reason the starving person even has access to this bread is because the owner labored to make it, then I don't see how he is entitled to it. He is ultimately responsible for himself and is not entitled to inflict violence against others to live (property being an extension of themselves). Your lecturer even uses the word "stealing", which is by definition unjustified and even implies absolute property. So, would the bread-maker not have the absolute right to protect himself against theft? All things being equal?

sama102 · 6 days

Theoretically, yes. But what are you inferring?

"Age" could be considered just the physical age of the body, which would make it irrelevant since a 35 year old man could be (theoretically) trapped in the body of an 8 year old. It wouldn't make him suddenly unaccountable for his contracts.

It's more about the mental maturity and acceptance of accountability, which young children usually don't have.

throwaway-o · 6 days

You can never question the power of the government to magically conjure up people's wishes. Statists know this to be false deep down, but won't admit to it. So they need to rationalize: If things go well, the government has this capacity and is necessary. But if not, well, it's because there are evil forces, politicians or capitalists, hellbent on undermining it's power; and we just need to elect the right people or give the government a little bit more power to make it work.

It's all so sadly predictable.

Anonymooted · 6 days

But why do those racist beliefs automatically have an impact on others, once voiced. Are you perhaps talking about the gullibility or non-thinking of other people? Or mass hysteria?

europeanLiberal · 8 days

I was just making a funny. Or trying to.

europeanLiberal · 8 days

Dave Grohl will yell at you?

crackheadphilosopher · 9 days

So you're trying to solve the problem of poverty and/or bad parenting, not child labor per se.

crackheadphilosopher · 9 days

People in compromising positions will still want to sell their children off to work. I think people will put survival over personal ethical code.

So in other words, people who are literally starving are going to have their children out working for food, so the family can live. Why would you want to prohibit them from doing so?

crackheadphilosopher · 9 days

I think it would be exploitative to use children for labor.

Can you define "exploitative"? Why is using children as labor bad?

TheUKLibertarian · 9 days

Heh, I got a similar reaction from listening to it. I was physically nauseous and just couldn't go through with it. Extremely powerful stuff.

ieattime20 · 13 days

"Don't hit" is an extremely poor generalized maxim, as there are tons of circumstances where it's completely OK to hit.

The point isn't the maxim itself (in this precise discussion). The point is that they are taught as being universally true, yet are broken by the adults, including even the teachers themselves. It's hypocrisy at it's finest.

Or would you perhaps disagree that there are certain moral codes that are forced down our throats by society?

LincolnSt · 14 days

I'm ridiculing your opinions, not you. You are not your opinions.

My apologies anyway. But just think about what I said, OK?

LincolnSt · 14 days

it does matter if we are part of the same territory though. if you live in a civilized area

Why is a territory claimed by a state now automatically a "civilized area", and not just a simple land claim?

if some people feel like checking out of the tax system it ends with civilization falling apart

Are you one of those 2012 Mayan Apocalypse people?

Anyway, consider this. Let's say a foreign government starts demanding taxes from you. (Say, the Canadian one.) Will civilization "fall apart" if you don't oblige? Why then if you don't pay the taxes to YOUR government? Shouldn't you be allowed to choose to whom you pay your taxes to?

LincolnSt · 14 days

it certainly is not as though some warlord is sending his horses out from his castle to shake down the peasants just to fill his own coffers though

It's exactly the same as if the warlord started trying to be Good Guy Greg and provide some "common" benefit to his population. It doesn't change the fact that he is a thieving warlord.

Look. Just think about it this way: I respect and accept any opinion you have on how to best provide some common good to your fellow men. But I only ask you to not force me to be part of your plan! I have my own ideas. (Doesn't matter if we're part of the same state territory or not.)

LincolnSt · 14 days

The state is, ideally, an entity formed by everyone who is a citizen/resident of that state.

You debunked your own argument. So when, exactly, did your or me co-found this entity called the state?

glasnostic · 16 days

Look. If this gets uncomfortable to you, you don't have to continue. All right?

a similar moral argument can be made that states that nobody can own water due to the fact that is is vital to our survival

Right, but it doesn't follow. Can nobody own food now because it's vital to our survival?

According to many geolibertarians, yes. Walking through it means you now own what you have come into contact with.

Well do you agree with this principle?

Its the meaning of life. procreation.

So if you have no territory, you can't procreate? Why so? Where's the connection, the logical link? Isn't a "home" for my family different than claiming a whole territory?

And again, can you think of any other justifications for territorial ownership?

throwaway-o · 16 days

You're right, I talk to him daily. Fucker can't stop railing against immigrants.

MyGogglesDoNothing

TROPHY CASE

MyGogglesDoNothing

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login