Initiated vs. Reactive Violence
 

In the US, what types of government-authorized violence are reactive? What types are initiated?

pvn assures me there is a qualitative difference.

Edit - To clarify: if you assume the government has a "right" to act in self-interest, I think all types qualify as reactive.

If the government does not have the right to act in self-interest for: collection of debts, enforcement of a majority-affirmed code of ethics; then why does any free market agent have the right to self-interest?

Re: Initiated vs. Reactive Violence
 

No one has the right to act violently in "self-interest", this would include your standard muggings and rapes. Perhaps you mean self-defense? Collecting "debts" which you imposed on other people against their will does not fall under this umbrella, not hardly.

Re: Initiated vs. Reactive Violence
 

[ QUOTE ]
Collecting "debts" which you imposed on other people against their will does not fall under this umbrella, not hardly.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about debts that people have incurred in exchange for your services? Is violence acceptable for collecting those debts?

(I'm not claiming anything about the "services" of the US government by asking this.)

Re: Initiated vs. Reactive Violence
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Collecting "debts" which you imposed on other people against their will does not fall under this umbrella, not hardly.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about debts that people have incurred in exchange for your services? Is violence acceptable for collecting those debts?

(I'm not claiming anything about the "services" of the US government by asking this.)

[/ QUOTE ]

If they explicitly agreed to get the services and pay you for them and be bound to do so by threat of force then yes.

Re: Initiated vs. Reactive Violence
 

Ok, fair enough. What about enforcing cultural ethics with violence? What's the line between initiated and reactive there?

Re: Initiated vs. Reactive Violence
 

Good rule of thumb, the government should only be able to do it if you can do it. Stopping a rapist by force OK, stopping a drug deal from going down by force not OK. Gotta go.

Re: Initiated vs. Reactive Violence
 

You can't make objective moral rules. You can only make objective rules about moral rules. Like the scientific method if you want to put forward a moral rule it has to apply to everyone in the same moral category. You don't have to have a rule saying do not steal but if you do you must apply it to everyone and that include government agents taking tax money. You don't have to have a rule saying do not murder but if you do you have to apply it to people in green uniforms to the same level that you do to people not in green uniforms.

Re: Initiated vs. Reactive Violence
 

[ QUOTE ]
Edit - To clarify: if you assume the government has a "right" to act in self-interest, I think all types qualify as reactive.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) Governments have no rights.

2) Governments have no self-interest.

3) having the "right to act in self interest" is incredibly vague and open-ended.
If I have such a right, that means I have a RIGHT to do whatever I want. Anything goes!

[ QUOTE ]
If the government does not have the right to act in self-interest for: collection of debts, enforcement of a majority-affirmed code of ethics; then why does any free market agent have the right to self-interest?

[/ QUOTE ]

Collection of debts? I can't just say "you owe me $100" and then have a right to collect that.

Regardless, why would my right to X be depenedent upon a government right to the same X? There's no reason one should be dependent on the other.

Re: Initiated vs. Reactive Violence
 

[ QUOTE ]
You can't make objective moral rules. You can only make objective rules about moral rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ding. This point cannot be emphasised enough.

[ QUOTE ]
Like the scientific method if you want to put forward a moral rule it has to apply to everyone in the same moral category. You don't have to have a rule saying do not steal but if you do you must apply it to everyone and that include government agents taking tax money. You don't have to have a rule saying do not murder but if you do you have to apply it to people in green uniforms to the same level that you do to people not in green uniforms.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. So anyone who wants to propose a moral system should first answer these two questions:

1) do you think moral systems which are consistent are better than moral systems which are inconsistent? (this is what you're getting at by saying rules should apply to everyone in the same moral class.)

2) do you think moral systems which only have one single moral class are better than moral systems which have more than one class?

Re: Initiated vs. Reactive Violence
 

[ QUOTE ]


1) Governments have no rights.

2) Governments have no self-interest.


[/ QUOTE ]

Actually the current state model used in the first world is based on the state being viewed as a juristic person.

You might disagree with that, but that wouldn't actually come as a shocker. But anyways, for those that support these models the state has rights and self-interest.

Re: Initiated vs. Reactive Violence
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You can't make objective moral rules. You can only make objective rules about moral rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ding. This point cannot be emphasised enough.

[/ QUOTE ]

So morality is subjective, but rules ABOUT morality are objective? Ummm...why? Just because you say so?

There is no difference between these statements:
- "Justice is good." (Morality.)
- "All good moralities are just." (Rule about morality.)

Do you see that you're just special pleading by claiming objectivity at ANY point?

Re: Initiated vs. Reactive Violence
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You can't make objective moral rules. You can only make objective rules about moral rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ding. This point cannot be emphasised enough.

[/ QUOTE ]

So morality is subjective, but rules ABOUT morality are objective? Ummm...why? Just because you say so?

There is no difference between these statements:
- "Justice is good." (Morality.)
- "All good moralities are just." (Rule about morality.)

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

Rules about morality are not necessarily objective. You can select a set of objective criteria, though.

Which car is "best" is subjective.

But we can say "let's measure a car's performance from 0-100kmh".

Or you could say "let's look at quarter-mile times".

Etc.

Which objective criteria you select is a subjective choice.

Re: Initiated vs. Reactive Violence
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You can't make objective moral rules. You can only make objective rules about moral rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ding. This point cannot be emphasised enough.

[/ QUOTE ]

So morality is subjective, but rules ABOUT morality are objective? Ummm...why? Just because you say so?

There is no difference between these statements:
- "Justice is good." (Morality.)
- "All good moralities are just." (Rule about morality.)

Do you see that you're just special pleading by claiming objectivity at ANY point?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you missed the point a bit. If you are putting forward a moral theory the first thing you need to do is make sure its consistant. Thats a rule about moral theories. You dont have to follow the rules, but if you dont then you are just accepting that there is no such thing as morality.

So if you accept the moral rule that moral theories have to be consistant then you cant say group A gets to draw lines on a map and extort money from people that live in that area and group B doesnt. Where group A is the government and group B is the mafia.

Re: Initiated vs. Reactive Violence
 

[ QUOTE ]
No.

Rules about morality are not necessarily objective. You can select a set of objective criteria, though.

Which car is "best" is subjective.

But we can say "let's measure a car's performance from 0-100kmh".

Or you could say "let's look at quarter-mile times".

Etc.

Which objective criteria you select is a subjective choice.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's pretty much what I was saying! Arbitrarily choosing a "best" morality is, indeed, subjective.

But...it's not more "objective" to first choose a set of comparative metrics, which then uniquely determine the "best" morality. Both are equally subjective; both are nothing more than special pleading, and there is no moral high ground.

Anyways, back to my initial question, what are the major types of US government-authorized violence that are (1) initiated; (2) reactive?

Re: Initiated vs. Reactive Violence
 

You were serious? I'll give it a shot off the top of my head:

initiated: drug war, income tax, import tarriffs, all other taxes, FDA/other regulation, Iraq war, CIA assassinations in other countries, most other armed conflicts we've been in, anti-discrimination laws (when applied to private sector), fiat currency laws, etc.

reactive: federal murder cases? Unabomber? WW2? Most violent offenders are charged in state courts.

Re: Initiated vs. Reactive Violence
 

[ QUOTE ]
initiated: drug war, income tax, import tarriffs, all other taxes, FDA/other regulation, Iraq war, CIA assassinations in other countries, most other armed conflicts we've been in, anti-discrimination laws (when applied to private sector), fiat currency laws, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to clarify, in order to improve my understanding of AC:

These only qualify as initiated violence against non-statists, right? Because statists are not actually being coerced; they believe the government has legitimate authority to enact majority-affirmed norms.

Re: Initiated vs. Reactive Violence
 

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)

Re: Initiated vs. Reactive Violence
 

[ 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?

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.

Are you at least willing to concede this point?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? I see no evidence presented, just a statement.

Superman is faster then the flash, do you concede this point?

Re: Initiated vs. Reactive Violence
 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." (Emphasis mine.)

Sound familiar?

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.