[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There's nothing "suspicious" about it, rape and murder are absolutely wrong no matter what some psychopath like Son of Sam might happen to think.

[/ QUOTE ]

Was Stauffenberg acting immorally when he attempted, at great personal cost (including his life), to assassinate Hitler?

[/ QUOTE ]

And how about defense of other? If I see someone hurting someone else, libertarians can't justify me stopping them, because that person has not used force against myself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Acting in legitimate self-defense or in legitimate defense of others is not the same as murder. The attempted assassination of Hitler was action in defense of others and hence not attempted murder. If an onlooking policeman or bystander sees a few hoodlums knifing a young woman to death, and that onlooker pulls out a gun and shoots to stop them, that might be killing but it is not murder.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand. What it is, is "initiation of aggression," something supposedly forbidden by libertarians.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I see the rapist as the initial aggressor, so someone stopping him in the act isn't initiating the aggression.

I think if libertarians consider the stopper to be the aggressor, they're just wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but you can only retaliate against someone who has initiated force against YOU, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that would be somewhere in the definition of "retaliate", yes. I didn't know we were talking about retaliation, though, but I might be a bit lost in the thread.