The difference between being coerced and coercing

[jogger08152]

[ 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 ]
What constitutes a demonstration of aggression?

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's only a risk if people preemptively shoot you merely for running with a knife, which is why I keep asking at what point it's okay to shoot someone preemptively.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why do you have to wait until he wields and/or charges? As I've already asked, at what point does it become okay to violently preempt what you believe will become his attack?

[IsaacW]

[ QUOTE ]
What constitutes a demonstration of aggression?

[/ QUOTE ]
In particular cases, each individual will have to make this assessment on his own. In terms of general principles, this sort of thing would be sorted out by the courts. That is, if I shot the guy with the knife when he wasn't "demonstrating aggression" he'll take me to court and we'll argue over whether or not he was acting aggressively. If the court decides I acted improperly I'll probably have to pay some kind of restitution to the guy for his injuries.

This is a case that would work under ACism pretty much the same way that it works now.

[pvn]

[ 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."

[/ QUOTE ]

This dilemma isn't specific to AC. AC isn't utopian.

Cliff's notes: this scenario doesn't demonstrate any problem specific to AC.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if the "right to exist" includes the right to exist in some "tangible place" are you suggesting that it includes a right to exist in a *particular* "tangible place"? If so, how is that tangible place determined for each person? Because the property I own now isn't the property I owned a year ago, did my right change? And is my right different than my neighbors?

If two people have different rights, wouldn't they be different classes of people?

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]

Situationally, and hopefully with good judgment.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
So if the "right to exist" includes the right to exist in some "tangible place" are you suggesting that it includes a right to exist in a *particular* "tangible place"?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know...good question. I would say it has to be a right to exist in "some" tangible place, not a particular one. Are you suggesting that you can have the right to exist without the right to exist in any tangible place?

[ QUOTE ]
If so, how is that tangible place determined for each person?

[/ QUOTE ]

In ACland, I posit that it wouldn't exist (absent private property ownership.) With a government in place there are (presumably, though not necessarily) public lands and roadways where you have a right to be.

[ QUOTE ]
Because the property I own now isn't the property I owned a year ago, did my right change?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, your right is the same --- to physically exist on personally held real property and public lands/roadways. So even in the absence of ownership of personal real property, you still have a right to be somewhere in this world. Not true if all land is privately held.

[elwoodblues]

[ 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).

[/ QUOTE ]

And...

In the absence of such publicly owned land (because it is neither a certainty, nor a likely event in my opinion) where do you have a right to exist?

[ QUOTE ]
I also think the actual scenario of a person not owning any land would be far less likely to occur.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I think you are on crack [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] ---- do you have any reason for this belief? Tell me how much land you think you would own on your 12th birthday, how about your 18th? I suspect not much.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So if the "right to exist" includes the right to exist in some "tangible place" are you suggesting that it includes a right to exist in a *particular* "tangible place"?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know...good question. I would say it has to be a right to exist in "some" tangible place, not a particular one. Are you suggesting that you can have the right to exist without the right to exist in any tangible place?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, then what's the difference between "a right to exist" and "a right to exist in some tangible space, but not any *particular* tangible space"? You're always in some tangible space.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If so, how is that tangible place determined for each person?

[/ QUOTE ]

In ACland, I posit that it wouldn't exist (absent private property ownership.) With a government in place there are (presumably, though not necessarily) public lands and roadways where you have a right to be.

[ QUOTE ]
Because the property I own now isn't the property I owned a year ago, did my right change?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, your right is the same --- to physically exist on personally held real property and public lands/roadways. So even in the absence of ownership of personal real property, you still have a right to be somewhere in this world. Not true if all land is privately held.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK. So this means anyone can exist in these spaces, right? So there's no basis for "building a wall" and no basis for excluding anyone from immigrating; to do so blocks these people from existing in areas they apparently have a right to exist in.

Correct?