Thread: Is Force Ever Justified?

Originally Posted by Defensor

Um, yeah, you are aware we are talking about human beings here, Oftencold?

1. This was not specified in the OP
2. The differences between the two groups are sometimes vanishingly small.

Originally Posted by Oftencold

This ... , that sort of thing.

Ah yes, the pre-emptive scenario. That's an interesting one. The "threat" of violence, so to speak.

Yes, excellent point. Seems we're kinda sayin' the same thing. It's all in the "perception" of the individual, yes?

So, like, yeah, perfect example - and I mean, fathers.... I'm a dad, and I'm a little unusual in terms of my value system, and I know other dads who are kinda unusual too, that way. But ALL of us, if someone looked sideways at our kid, would take steps, right? So, yeah - human nature.

You know - let's see, here's one: I have an "unusual" perception of THREAT, when it comes to teachers. Any teacher that tries to shove moralistic clap-trap down my kid's throat, I'm gonna PERSONALLY see to it that person is either reprimanded or fired (or both, preferably).

So, kinda how I look at this, is, in terms of the concept of "appropriate response", or what the mil guys call "appropriate level of force", right?

And, each person is different that way, there's no "standard" in that regard.

I don't think it would be POSSIBLE to impose such a standard. That would be the same kind of brain-dead stupidity that results in things like Prohibition, and the legislation of the value of Pi. In fact, come to think of it, it's the same kind of brain-dead stupidity that the Neo-Fools engage in when they think they can throw money at human nature and make it go away. These kinds of things, I call "pipe dreams". Fantasies. "Theoretical" constructs, that only work in their own realms - the models may be "internally consistent" but they fail when the the boundary conditions are relaxed and the model is opened to the environment. Communism, is another such thing. Same shit, different words. "To each according to his needs", is every bit as much of a pipe dream, as "you may not use violence". Those things, are CONTRARY to human nature, and therefore they won't work as viable political systems, they'll eventually succumb to the vagaries of human nature.

Sometime, I'd very much like you to start a thread explaining your aversion to the term "moralistic" and your definition of same.

Originally Posted by Oftencold

Sometime, I'd very much like you to start a thread explaining your aversion to the term "moralistic" and your definition of same.

Look it up!

Moralism - "denial of alternative systems of valuation".

Note, that there are at least two contexts, to that word "denial". Yes? Hmm....

My aversion to it? I got my own way of doin' things, thank you very much. Don't need your system of valuation, got my own. Simple enough concept, yes?

Originally Posted by Defensor

Do you agree with the following statement?

"No one may threaten or commit violence ('aggress') against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor."
(Murray N. Rothbard, The Myth of National Defense)


If not, what exceptions do you make? Or does might make right, always?

I agree with this statement. So many people try to include that aggression against a potential aggressor is logical as well, I don't believe that. I can't justify this in the terms of foreign policy. We should only employ in counter-aggression against a force that is creating an imminent threat against our own nation, not any other nation. We should not employ in any preemptive war using the justification that at some point in the future, said foreign state could, maybe, perhaps, attack us. Also, I don't believe in defensive alliances, as they lead to entangling situations that can lead to massive outbreaks of war, trade sanctions, death, economic failure, etc. I also disagree with the usage of military force for the sake of personal gain for a country.

All of these situations, besides a non-interventionist policy, lead us into a state of continuous warfare and military occupations of almost every country in the world, draining our resources and restriction rights domestic to ensure we retain world power.

Originally Posted by GraspingForPeace

Also, I don't believe in defensive alliances, as they lead to entangling situations that can lead to massive outbreaks of war, trade sanctions, death, economic failure, etc.

That's an interesting statement. You don't believe in "sharing the risk"?

'Cause I mean, that's what defense is, right? It's "insurance", against a perceived "risk".

I'm back to my earlier scenario, of the good people of the town, chipping in to hire a sherrif, to protect them against the guys in the black hats.

Yes, you're right, alliances can lead to all those things you mentioned. That's the "risk", yes?

But then, should that actually happen, you'd only have to shoulder half the burden. And, that burden is considerable. Indeed it is.

Hmm.... defensive alliances? The 50 States are a defensive alliance, aren't we?

The more important question is, Is your mum justified?

Originally Posted by nonsqtr

That's an interesting statement. You don't believe in "sharing the risk"?

'Cause I mean, that's what defense is, right? It's "insurance", against a perceived "risk".

I'm back to my earlier scenario, of the good people of the town, chipping in to hire a sherrif, to protect them against the guys in the black hats.

Yes, you're right, alliances can lead to all those things you mentioned. That's the "risk", yes?

But then, should that actually happen, you'd only have to shoulder half the burden. And, that burden is considerable. Indeed it is.

Hmm.... defensive alliances? The 50 States are a defensive alliance, aren't we?

I believe in defense of your own country, and not this idea of protection of the whole world. When you advocate your right to protect every sovereign nation and every single person against an aggressor, it never stops and becomes a series of entangling events where you leave yourself open to aggression and actually invoke hatred onto your country which increases the likelihood of being attacked.


"Hmm.... defensive alliances? The 50 States are a defensive alliance, aren't we?"

We are a single country that has been divided into individual states to better manage a free trade market and democracy, nothing more. No state is free to remove themselves from the Republic unless under extreme conditions.

We are a single country that has been divided into individual states to better manage a free trade market and democracy, nothing more. No state is free to remove themselves from the Republic unless under extreme conditions.

Two thing.

1) Secession is illegal, period.

2) This is a federal republic, in that the country is formed from the Union of the 51 states, not the other way round.

Originally Posted by GraspingForPeace

We are a single country that has been divided into individual states to better manage a free trade market and democracy, nothing more.

That, is classic. Sig material!

Originally Posted by GraspingForPeace

No state is free to remove themselves from the Republic unless under extreme conditions.

They're free to do it if they CAN.

I don't think, that any of the 50 "can", at this point.

But ah - yeah, that was Palin's deal, right? Alaska Independence Party? Secede in favor of natural resources, some such nonsense?