[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not enforcing morality, I'm just asking people to enact their own stated morality. If you say stealing is wrong act as if stealing is wrong. If statists and governments just said we're bigger and stronger than you so give us your money then I wouldn't have a problem with the message (though obviously I'd disagree with the action) but the fact that they moralize but don't live up to their own stated morals is the real problem. stealing is wrong, it is moral pay your taxes. Logically only one of these statements can be true. I just want people to pick a side and declare themselves honestly. Is the initiation of violence good or bad? If it bad it's bad for everyone if it's good it's good for everyone there are no special classes of people.
[/ QUOTE ]
I obviously have no problem whatsoever with the initiation of violence in punishment of certain actions. Anybody who disagrees is a fool.
[/ QUOTE ]
If it's in punishment for
actions it's not initiation doucy?
[/ QUOTE ]
What sort of actions qualify for being met with violence then? And if you say "violent", I'd like you to define it.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's not really my decision, and I absolutly agree that there are fringe cases and grey areas that are horribly complicated and where there is no clear answer. But I think that if we all agreed that say murder theft and rape (whoever performs them) are wrong and therefore can be legitimately stopped with violence we'd be in a far better place than we are now.
If you're genuinely interested in this admittedly complex area I'd recommend giving this book a try. This guy has thought about these issues a great deal more than me and can probably give you a more satisfactory answer.
Universally Preferable Behaviour: A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics
http://www.freedomainradio.com/books.html