[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There's been no interaction until a bullet actually does travel from his property to yours.

[/ QUOTE ]

"The state is not actually using force to coerce behaviour from you until you break the law and the put you in jail."

True or not true?

[/ QUOTE ]

Non sequitur.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose you could make that case. It still seems to me that you're saying:

The threat that the state will harm me if I violate their rules is a violation of individual rights.

The threat that pvn will accidentally shoot mosdef regardless of what mosdef does is not a violation of his rights because it's just a threat and that doesn't count.

I don't find that set of arguments compelling.

[/ QUOTE ]

The agents of the state make explict threats. You do XYZ, then I will do this. You do ABC *or* I will do this.

Am I giving you ultimatums?

Am I making threats?

Am I being negligent?

Your house might catch on fire and spread to my property. Therefore building a house on your propert is a "violation" of my "rights".

Your dog might leave your property, come onto mine, and bite me. I might get rabies. I might die. Therefore, your possession of a dog is a "violation" of my "rights".

Your decision to *not* possess a gun could lead to a situation where you could be in a position to shoot an attacker, but be unable to. I could then be stabbed by that attacker. Therefore, your decision to not have a gun is a "violation" of my "rights".