Is this a "middle-truth"?

[Vuk11]

Hey all I'm going through "Universally preferred behavior" and trying to look at the example of DRO's in Stefan's article: The stateless society - An examination of alternatives.

 

If someone voluntarily signs over protection of their property to a DRO, then someone violates that by stealing their property, is the act of enforcing the protection of property rights (or rather using force to enforce it) immoral and then a middle-truth? Or does it come back to looking at the consequence over the reason for the action? 

 

It might seem silly but it's 3AM ( ) and I keep drawing parallels between enforcing property rights through force and enforcing laws through force. Does the DRO not become the arbitrary "blue uniform" for initiating force?

 

Cheers.

[Wesley]

No, because I choose what property I am willing to use as collateral to lower my DRO premium.

 

The state takes whatever they want. The just need to write it on their paper (usually). I get no choice.

[Pepin]

If someone voluntarily signs over protection of their property to a DRO, then someone violates that by stealing their property, is the act of enforcing the protection of property rights immoral and then a middle-truth?

 

I'm not really following this. If you sign up for a DRO program and someone rapes you, the DRO and anybody else is ethically justified in using force to stop the rape. Are those that stop the rape immoral for enforcing property rights? 

[Vuk11]

Thanks for the replies that's what I was thinking.  

To me the act of correcting an immoral act is moral. The counter I keep getting is that by using force no matter the outcome or reason,  is violent and therefore immoral. 

I'm just trying to make sense of that so I can better explain it to people that to fix an immorality is indeed moral. 

 

Thanks for your patience I'm new to all this and the community is pretty accommodating. 

[wdiaz03]

Yup is called "initiation of force" for a reason. Those who took the property to begin with initiated the force. the DRO is using force to get it back but they didn't initiate it.

[Lians]

Another thing is that DROs don't even have to initiate force. If someone steals something from you, your DRO can contact local business and other DROs with a request to ostracise this person until s/he provides restitution and takes steps towards preventing future crimes. DROs would probably have some kind of prevention campaigns as well, because prevention is cheaper than cure.

[Hannibal]

 

It might seem silly but it's 3AM ( ) and I keep drawing parallels between enforcing property rights through force and enforcing laws through force. Does the DRO not become the arbitrary "blue uniform" for initiating force?

 

 

 

There's nothing wrong with enforcing laws with force. The difference is in what can be considered a law. It's as simple as that.

[Pepin]

The counter I keep getting is that by using force no matter the outcome or reason, is violent and therefore immoral. 

 

These are words that I highly doubt that they act on in their own life. You can test this by punching them in the face and stealing their wallet. If they let you do that and don't use any sort of violence including third parties such as the police to get back their wallet and be compensated for the damage done to their nose, then they actually believe what they say. If not, well then they don't actually believe or understand what they are saying which makes a debate pointless.

 

Of course I don't suggest doing this, but bring up the scenario to them and make their claim personal. Is this how they live their lives?