I was explaining to someone that the initiation of force is not universally preferable behaviour because in order for it to be force it has to be unwanted.
He didn't agree and this is why:
"Well what if 400 million people will die if you don't kick Jack in the stomach?
Thus the initiation of force is not always unwanted."
So I asked him: "What is the connection between Jack and the 400 million people that are about to die if I don't kick Jack?"
"Nothing" He said.
Seriously what does one say to this nonsense?
I told him my theory, just like gravity, is derived from real world logic and empiricism and that his scenario does not make sense with the real world.
And somehow that made the theory invalid according to him.
So I told him, well, yes, the initiation of force is immoral, so kicking Jack, who has nothing to do with the possible deaths of 400 million people, is immoral.
He continued to call me a pancake and used some fancy difficult words to tell me how he won the discussion and celebrated.
Later he told me I would be responsible for 400 million deaths.
So I told him "How can I be responsible for 400 million deaths? Neither Jack, nor I have any connection with those people. So me not kicking jack wouldn't make me responsible for their deaths.
He told me I was wrong ofcourse
And I realised, Why am I even doing this? Bummer though because I was explaining to people how taxation was theft, and because of this guy I didn't get to do so.
