Isn't the non-aggression principle violated when we punish?

[Kludge]

Don't you mean, what am I going to do in response to that initation of force?

You are not bound to respond. It is a choice.

 

[Elwar]

You are not bound to respond. It is a choice.

It is, because you are the victim...but it would still be a response to initiation of force.

 

[Elwar]

If I initiate a conversation...you are not initiating a conversation by responding to me.

 

[Kludge]

It is, because you are the victim...but it would still be a response to initiation of force.

A response which would initiate new force, if you so chose.

 

[apropos]

You are not bound to respond. It is a choice.

The response is action or inaction. The initial punch thrown was the initiation of the interaction.

On a side note, I have to wonder what happens if the guy keeps initiating a punch to your face?

 

[Kludge]

If I initiate a conversation...you are not initiating a conversation by responding to me.

It is not the same. Conversation isn't "conversation" until the second person gives feedback. Conversation is the exchange of ideas.

 

[Truth Warrior]

The response is action or inaction. The initial punch thrown was the initiation of the interaction.

On a side note, I have to wonder what happens if the guy keeps initiating a punch to your face?

Normal human "instinctual" reaction from the ancient reptilian sub-brain, "Fight or Flight".

 

[sailor]

If it were me, I'd let the victim decide the punishment with the limitation that the punishment does not go beyond the crime.

In our society punishment has been delegated to "jail time".

Jesus came up with "an eye for an eye" not as a punishment, but as a delimeter. He saw that if one neighbor killed someone's goat, the other neighbor would kill two of his goats as punishment, which would result in four of the other neighbor's goats, and so on and so on..."an eye for an eye" would set the punishment as one goat to one goat.

What if the perp doesn`t have a goat of his own?

 

[Kludge]

Ok, let me clarify.

Force can be initiated when someone hits you. When he is done hitting you, the force has ended. To hit back would be the initiation of NEW force.

 

[Elwar]

It is not the same. Conversation isn't "conversation" until the second person gives feedback. Conversation is the exchange of ideas.

The conversation has to be initiated though.


Did Iraq initiate a war with us when their troops responded to our bombing of their country?

 

[Elwar]

Ok, let me clarify.

Force can be initiated when someone hits you. When he is done hitting you, the force has ended. To hit back would be the initiation of NEW force.

Initial denotes first...

You were the first to use force...any response would not be the first to use force.

 

[Kludge]

Did Iraq initiate a war with us when their troops responded to our bombing of their country?

You're still talking about something that is happening. Force does not always continually happen, and very rarely in individual-to-individual interactions.

There are three types of force I can think of off the top of my head: preemptive, what you're talking about (response to what IS happening), and retaliatory.

Preemptive aggression is generally rejected by libertarians, while retaliatory (the hitting of someone after they have hit you) is often not. What I think you are talking about is rarely discussed because it's almost never presented in reality. Preemptive and retaliatory are both the initiation of aggression because the aggression against you already ended (or never started, in the case of preemptive aggression).

 

[Elwar]

initiate - "To set going by taking the first step"

 

[Kludge]

initiate - "To set going by taking the first step"

By that logic, would fornicating be the initiation of aggression if the resulting baby went on to commit aggression? After all, it is the first step in a chain of events.

 

[Elwar]

Preemptive aggression is generally rejected by libertarians, while retaliatory (the hitting of someone after they have hit you) is often not.

I can't speak for most libertarians, but I believe in self defense...which side do you think libertarians were on when the criminal was shot this morning trying to hold up a fast food restaurant?

 

[Kludge]

I can't speak for most libertarians, but I believe in self defense...which side do you think libertarians were on when the criminal was shot this morning trying to hold up a fast food restaurant?

Edit: I take this back

 

[Elwar]

By that logic, would fornicating be the initiation of aggression if the resulting baby went on to commit aggression? After all, it is the first step in a chain of events.

That's the definition...not some logic..


If you want to generalize the life of the aggressor in a way that the word initiate can be used you could probably do so.

The aggressor's life was initiated when his parents had sex. But the aggression (the action) would not take place until the point where he initiates force.

 

[Kludge]

That's the definition...not some logic..


If you want to generalize the life of the aggressor in a way that the word initiate can be used you could probably do so.

The aggressor's life was initiated when his parents had sex. But the aggression (the action) would not take place until the point where he initiates force.

Okay...

Pretend I punch you.

One year later, do you believe that the NAP would permit you to punch me back?

What does it matter if the length of time after the aggression has taken place is one second or one year?

 

[Elwar]

I don't believe a person truly believes in the NAP if they were to say they side with the shooter.

Only if they did not understand what "initiation of force" means.

 

[Kludge]

Only if they did not understand what "initiation of force" means.

Aye, I took that back because the aggression was still occurring when the shooter shot the initial initiator. It would fit what you are talking about.

Edit: Elwar left to eat lunch.