Re: The difference between being coerced and coercing
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
At risk of a brief threadjacking, at what point would it be okay for me to intervene?

[/ QUOTE ]

at the point were the interaction becomes non voluntary.

IE as soon as he charges the child w/ a knife you can / should shoot his ass.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps even sooner. I don't let anyone I don't know wield knives on my property, whether they are charging or not.

[/ QUOTE ]
Who said this encounter takes place on your property? Perhaps it takes place in a shopping mall, or on the golf course. In any case, do you really agree with the above? In other words, as soon as "Villain" (who isn't a villain yet) charges toward you holding a knife, you can shoot him merely because you *think* he may be hostile? I hadn't figured you for a supporter of Bush's pre-emptive strike doctrine.

[/ QUOTE ]
If it were like Bush's doctrine, pvn would need to walk into some guy's house and shoot him in his bed because he thinks that guy has a knife.

The guy charging your kid with a knife is the one who initiated aggression. You shooting him is a response to that aggression and is therefore self-defense.

[/ QUOTE ]
At what point is his motivation clear enough that it's okay to preemptively attack him?

[/ QUOTE ]
He's attacking you in the scenario in the OP so there is no preemption.

[/ QUOTE ]
At what point is his motivation clear enough that it's okay to preemptively attack him?

Re: The difference between being coerced and coercing
 

[ QUOTE ]
At what point is his motivation clear enough that it's okay to preemptively attack him?


[/ QUOTE ]

from my post on page one of this thread:

[ QUOTE ]
at the point were the interaction becomes non voluntary.

IE as soon as he charges the child w/ a knife you can / should shoot his ass.


[/ QUOTE ]

edit: to add or as soon as intent to do harm is verifiable

Re: The difference between being coerced and coercing
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
At risk of a brief threadjacking, at what point would it be okay for me to intervene?

[/ QUOTE ]

at the point were the interaction becomes non voluntary.

IE as soon as he charges the child w/ a knife you can / should shoot his ass.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps even sooner. I don't let anyone I don't know wield knives on my property, whether they are charging or not.

[/ QUOTE ]
Who said this encounter takes place on your property? Perhaps it takes place in a shopping mall, or on the golf course. In any case, do you really agree with the above? In other words, as soon as "Villain" (who isn't a villain yet) charges toward you holding a knife, you can shoot him merely because you *think* he may be hostile? I hadn't figured you for a supporter of Bush's pre-emptive strike doctrine.

[/ QUOTE ]
If it were like Bush's doctrine, pvn would need to walk into some guy's house and shoot him in his bed because he thinks that guy has a knife.

The guy charging your kid with a knife is the one who initiated aggression. You shooting him is a response to that aggression and is therefore self-defense.

[/ QUOTE ]
At what point is his motivation clear enough that it's okay to preemptively attack him?

[/ QUOTE ]
He's attacking you in the scenario in the OP so there is no preemption.

[/ QUOTE ]
At what point is his motivation clear enough that it's okay to preemptively attack him?

[/ QUOTE ]
It's not ok to attack someone before they demonstrate aggression towards you. Once they've done so, you can't preemptively attack since you are already under attack.

Re: The difference between being coerced and coercing
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
At risk of a brief threadjacking, at what point would it be okay for me to intervene?

[/ QUOTE ]

at the point were the interaction becomes non voluntary.

IE as soon as he charges the child w/ a knife you can / should shoot his ass.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps even sooner. I don't let anyone I don't know wield knives on my property, whether they are charging or not.

[/ QUOTE ]
Who said this encounter takes place on your property? Perhaps it takes place in a shopping mall, or on the golf course. In any case, do you really agree with the above? In other words, as soon as "Villain" (who isn't a villain yet) charges toward you holding a knife, you can shoot him merely because you *think* he may be hostile? I hadn't figured you for a supporter of Bush's pre-emptive strike doctrine.

[/ QUOTE ]
If it were like Bush's doctrine, pvn would need to walk into some guy's house and shoot him in his bed because he thinks that guy has a knife.

The guy charging your kid with a knife is the one who initiated aggression. You shooting him is a response to that aggression and is therefore self-defense.

[/ QUOTE ]
At what point is his motivation clear enough that it's okay to preemptively attack him?

[/ QUOTE ]
He's attacking you in the scenario in the OP so there is no preemption.

[/ QUOTE ]
At what point is his motivation clear enough that it's okay to preemptively attack him?

[/ QUOTE ]
It's not ok to attack someone before they demonstrate aggression towards you. Once they've done so, you can't preemptively attack since you are already under attack.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right but what this leads to is the "He was running at a guy stealing something behind her and you shot him because you thought he was charging your child."

I'm not giving an opinion on anything here in, just saying that's the kind of dilemma you'll be in if this line of thinking continues.

Cody

Re: The difference between being coerced and coercing
 

[ QUOTE ]
Right but what this leads to is the "He was running at a guy stealing something behind her and you shot him because you thought he was charging your child."

I'm not giving an opinion on anything here in, just saying that's the kind of dilemma you'll be in if this line of thinking continues.

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]
Possible, but this scenario seems pretty far-fetched and in this scenario, I think nearly every parent thinks of their child's safety in such a situation and takes care of that first and foremost. It seems unnatural to deny that. It's also a risk you run if you're going to pull a knife and chase down shoplifters behind children without explanation.

Re: The difference between being coerced and coercing
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps even sooner. I don't let anyone I don't know wield knives on my property, whether they are charging or not.

[/ QUOTE ]
Who said this encounter takes place on your property?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps even sooner

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps it takes place in a shopping mall, or on the golf course.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps it does. It wasn't specified.

[ QUOTE ]
In any case, do you really agree with the above? In other words, as soon as "Villain" (who isn't a villain yet) charges toward you holding a knife, you can shoot him merely because you *think* he may be hostile?

[/ QUOTE ]

I surely can.

[ QUOTE ]
I hadn't figured you for a supporter of Bush's pre-emptive strike doctrine.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, I was wondering when you were going to throw in your customary inflamatory logical fallacy.

[/ QUOTE ]
At what point may you preemptively shoot someone, according to your moral tenets? In what manner are you determining intent? Naturally I'm quite interested in your position on thoughtcrime, which I had erroniously believed you opposed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Shooting someone for imagining charging at you with a knife and stabbing you is a reacation to a 'thought crime.'

Weilding a knife and 'charging' is agression. That is plainly obvious. It is insane to suggest that you have no right to act until the knife plunges into you. Simply insane.

Re: The difference between being coerced and coercing
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


i cannot imagine any situation where someone couldn't sell the fruits of there labor. Even the most handicapped person basically sells being handicapped to charities in exchange for goods.

[/ QUOTE ]

Almost anyone probably could sell the fruits of their labor...sure. But in terms of "rights" a non-real estate owning individual in ACland can exist only at the pleasure of property owners. This person does not have a right to travel to his place of labor because all travel is conducted on private property (private roads/waterways.) It would likely not be a problem in real terms (he would probably just trespass, or be given permission to travel on company owned roads), but all of this is at the pleasure of the land owners.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what? Do you realize that society is a royal mess as it stands right now? We are all paying ~50% of our income in taxes to exist on government territory as it is right now.

Re: The difference between being coerced and coercing
 

[ QUOTE ]
So what?

[/ QUOTE ]

So what??? It's a big deal that the one universal right upon which the foundations of AC are built (the right to your personhood) is ultimately contingent upon the whims of others. The right to life/"controlling the fruits of one's labor" is a fairly hollow right if it doesn't include the right to exist in any tangible place.

Re: The difference between being coerced and coercing
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
At what point is his motivation clear enough that it's okay to preemptively attack him?


[/ QUOTE ]

from my post on page one of this thread:

[ QUOTE ]
at the point were the interaction becomes non voluntary.

IE as soon as he charges the child w/ a knife you can / should shoot his ass.


[/ QUOTE ]

edit: to add or as soon as intent to do harm is verifiable

[/ QUOTE ]
How do you propose to ascertain someone's intent to do harm?

Re: The difference between being coerced and coercing
 

[ QUOTE ]
Almost anyone probably could sell the fruits of their labor...sure. But in terms of "rights" a non-real estate owning individual in ACland can exist only at the pleasure of property owners. This person does not have a right to travel to his place of labor because all travel is conducted on private property (private roads/waterways.) It would likely not be a problem in real terms (he would probably just trespass, or be given permission to travel on company owned roads), but all of this is at the pleasure of the land owners.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing about anarchism precludes land being unowned or 'publicly' owned (though an owning public would probably be more like a community than an entire country). I also think the actual scenario of a person not owning any land would be far less likely to occur.