[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
How does this contradict what I said? If they *choose* to *not* interact, then nobodys morality is violated. You then pull some example where one party chooses TO interact. This can't possibly refute what you quoted.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, I thought we were still talking in the following context:

Person A has a morality where it is moral for him to interact with you without your consent.

Person B has a morality where that is not moral.

I thought our discussion around "choosing not to interact" was based on your assertion that this is one of the possible solutions to this conflict between moralites.

[ QUOTE ]
Like I said, the only other alternative, when there isn't agreement, is for force to be used to impose upon the other party.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. I guess I am saying that them "choosing not to interact" because Person A is afraid of a violent defense on Person B's part is still a forceful trumping of Person A's morality.

[ QUOTE ]
If party A initiates force upon an unwilling party, he has no legitimate expectation that the unwilling party will not return force - even if his personal morality says he's justified.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're throwing around "legitimate" again like it's a some universal theme. Many statists expect you to pay taxes because they think it's your moral obligation. Just because you think it's an illegitimate expectation doesn't make it illegitimate.