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.