Re: Initiated vs. Reactive Violence
 

[ QUOTE ]
Rather, a lot of people do believe that the government has legitimate authority to violently enforce the mandate of the majority.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats fine, it doesnt mean its morally acceptable. The majority used to think that slavery was ok and women had no right, etc. The whole point of this conversation is to raise an awareness of the true nature of government so that the majority dont accept the initiation of force upon the minority. The beliefs of the majority are irrelevant to this discussion.

Re: Initiated vs. Reactive Violence
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Rather, a lot of people do believe that the government has legitimate authority to violently enforce the mandate of the majority.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats fine, it doesnt mean its morally acceptable. The majority used to think that slavery was ok and women had no right, etc. The whole point of this conversation is to raise an awareness of the true nature of government so that the majority dont accept the initiation of force upon the minority. The beliefs of the majority are irrelevant to this discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you on this. But I'm trying to figure out how to discriminate "initiated" vs. "reactive" violence.

Whether or not they should, most people think that the government deserves "powers...to effect their Safety and Happiness." These powers include violent coercion of people exhibiting minority norms.

So is it correct to call government violence against statists "initiated violence"? After all, the government only exists because it is continually empowered by statists.

There's something very "self-inflicted" about this scenario that doesn't make "initiated" feel like the right word.

I mean, no artificially self-sustaining "state" exists in some extra-social context. The state is just a very large social institution enforcing one basic principle: the majority of my members are always right. Deal with it or I deal with you.

Re: Initiated vs. Reactive Violence
 

[ QUOTE ]
So is it correct to call government violence against statists "initiated violence"? After all, the government only exists because it is continually empowered by statists.


[/ QUOTE ]

Its in a weird sort of category I guess. Its like what if I threatened to kill you unless you ate 3 times a day? Its not really a threat since you are going to do it anyway.

As for being in the minority, theres really nothing you can do about it but hope things change. This has always been true whether you are an athiest in the middle ages are an african-american in the 19th century.

[ QUOTE ]
I mean, no artificially self-sustaining "state" exists in some extra-social context. The state is just a very large social institution enforcing one basic principle: the majority of my members are always right. Deal with it or I deal with you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this. Societies structure is always going to represent what the majority think. And as we (hopefully) move more towards a free society the current democratic structure will represent the ideals of the population. We will see more Ron Paul type candidates in the future if all goes well.

Re: Initiated vs. Reactive Violence
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd say it's initiated violence against anyone, but some people are for whatever reason willing to tolerate violence initiated by the state. (different people give different reasons)

[/ QUOTE ]

Well...I wouldn't say the distinction is who tolerates it! Despite all the talk on here of defending rights, my guess is 0.5% of the forum would even consider resisting arrest with a firearm. (Or even resisting passively via tax evasion, etc.)

Rather, a lot of people do believe that the government has legitimate authority to violently enforce the mandate of the majority.

Are you at least willing to concede this point?

[/ QUOTE ]

Eh, instead of tolerate I could have said accept, rationalize, consent, whatever. I think violence is still violence (and likewise for initiated) even if the person doesn't mind. Whether initiating violence against a willing victim is just as immoral, is a different question.

Re: Initiated vs. Reactive Violence
 

What rights, if any, do institutions derive from the collective rights of their members? A well-argued answer to this question clears up all the ambiguities, I think.

The problem is that statists can simply claim that individual rights "scale up" to the institutional level. Thus threats to the institution are indirect threats to its members.

Re: Initiated vs. Reactive Violence
 

A properly delegated body with explicit consent of all of its members may be authorized to exercise many of the rights of its members, but a democratically elected government is not that. You can give your lawyer power of attorney to act on your behalf but he can't get that power by getting 51% of your neighbors to give him theirs.