Is defending someone else from the initiation of force, initiation of force?

[Magnetic Synthesizer]

3 people: B G X

G intiates force against B.

X engages in violent action to defend B from G's initiation of force.

 

Is X initiating force?

 

I say yes without thinking.

[Alan C.]

No, it's not the initiation of force.

 

The reason why is because G's initial action set events in motion. By initiating force, G affirmed and sanctioned force, invalidated any moral imperative claim to not be aggressed against, and thus consented to it.

[Guest Gee]

Both logically and in law, no.

[Carl Green]

X's action was initiated by G's, therefore it wasn't the initial force.

[dsayers]

When I first started listening to Stef, I always wondered why he said "initiation THE USE OF force" instead of initiation of force. This is a prime example of why the distinction is necessary. ALL uses of force have a beginning. In your scenario, the person who first brings force against another into the equation is initiating THE USE OF force.

 

Another useful way to look at it is that the person initiation the use of force is telling you, by way of their own actions, that they reject property rights. This is precisely why defensive force is righteous and philosophically sound.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

It's a matter of logic. If G initiated force then by definition any proportionate force in response is defensive. 

[shirgall]

Context matters. If you shoot someone dead for stealing Twinkies from a store you've made a grievous error.

 

Yeah, they initiated force, but I contend (again), that the circumstance that justifies the use of lethal force is the immediate, otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to oneself or the innocent.

 

However, if you have an opportunity to steal the snack cakes back and return them to the store, that seems more on balance. Me, I think reporting it and the store refusing to allow that person entry again is plenty.

[russoft]

So does this mean that wars fought by western powers to protect civilians from their government are as moral as wars to defend against an invasion? I mean, forget for a moment that taxation is theft, etc. Say it was a private defense force, or something. There are so many examples (many that have been ignored by the "world police" or UN) of dictators destroying the economy, impoverishing the people, and often then massacring any group that is seen as a threat to power. Of course, wars usually involve a ton of collateral damage including destruction of private property and killing of civilians, so maybe beyond talking about individuals the principle breaks down?

[dsayers]

So does this mean that wars fought by western powers to protect civilians from their government are as moral as wars to defend against an invasion? I mean, forget for a moment that taxation is theft, etc. Say it was a private defense force, or something. There are so many examples (many that have been ignored by the "world police" or UN) of dictators destroying the economy, impoverishing the people, and often then massacring any group that is seen as a threat to power. Of course, wars usually involve a ton of collateral damage including destruction of private property and killing of civilians, so maybe beyond talking about individuals the principle breaks down?

Other way around. By using general terms and concepts, you're no longer talking about anything tangible. War is a concept, not a behavior. "Western power" is a concept, not a person.

 

Context matters. If you shoot someone dead for stealing Twinkies from a store you've made a grievous error.

 

Yeah, they initiated force, but I contend (again), that the circumstance that justifies the use of lethal force is the immediate, otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to oneself or the innocent.

Yes. Force is a continuum and using excessive force is no longer defense, but retaliation, which is itself the initiation of the use of force.

 

The person initiation the use of force is creating a debt to his victim in the amount of value stolen, plus the amount of value needed to settle the debt. If somebody was to take value not comparable to that amount (as in the example of shooting somebody for theft of candy), their behavior can be seen not as settling the previous debt, but creating a much larger one.

[shirgall]

So does this mean that wars fought by western powers to protect civilians from their government are as moral as wars to defend against an invasion?

 

There's a serious question of jeopardy in some of the cases. If invasion isn't imminent, or cannot be prevented via diplomatic means, going to war is not the moral choice.

[Magnetic Synthesizer]

When I first This is precisely why defensive force is righteous and philosophically sound.

It is not in self-defence, but in defence of another.

[Magnetic Synthesizer]

It's a matter of logic. If G initiated force then by definition any proportionate force in response is defensive. 

Well X is not threathened, he is not defending himself.

[Magnetic Synthesizer]

It's a matter of logic. If G initiated force then by definition any proportionate force in response is defensive. 

X, the other violant party, is not being attacked.

[Will Torbald]

Well X is not threathened, he is not defending himself.

 

X is using force to end an aggression which was started by G. If you deem the initiation of force as that which is immoral, then the cessation of force can't be immoral since it is its opposite.

[dsayers]

It is not in self-defence, but in defence of another.

Didn't say self.

[BaylorPRSer]

I like the way Stephan Kinsella frames this.  He prefers the words violence, aggression, and self-defense/defense.  Violence is the category and aggression and self-defense are different types of violence.  The NAP says aggression, not violence or self-defense is immoral.  Aggression is violence against a nonconsenting and peaceful person.  A person initiating force (committing an act of aggression) is not being peaceful, so using force or committing an act of violence against him or her is not an act of aggression.

[Carl Green]

...I say yes without thinking.

 

Is this still the case? What are your thoughts on it after ruminating and getting feedback from others?

[David Ottinger]

No, it's a response to force.  It's called third-party defense. 

[Magnetic Synthesizer]

Is this still the case? What are your thoughts on it after ruminating and getting feedback from others?

Well, I did think. Just not a lot.

 

I still think that it gives more opportunity for over-reaction.

Since not only the attacked party can over-react, but eveyrone in the world can.

I believe an over-reaction in self-defense is always justifiable under universal principles.

I project that onto over-reaciton in defence of others and feel it is too severe.

 

A situation could escalate and involve many people at the slightest misunderstanding or disagreement.

Like if you mistake who initiated force.

 

I don't run like this in my morality. It's not a personal moral question.

It's rather a social question, how would people think and what the dynamic would be. That is outside the scope of our present world. No ancap around.

[Carl Green]

Ah okay. So you're thinking there's a sort of slippery slope with defending others being valid it sounds like. Very possible I guess, especially depending on the situation.

 

I just have one point of dispute with the rest of that though, regarding an over-reaction being justifiable. The prefix word 'over' is there for a reason. To indicate that it's too much. Either a defense is justified and not over-reaction, or it's not justified which then makes it considered over.

[dsayers]

I believe an over-reaction in self-defense is always justifiable under universal principles.

I project that onto over-reaciton in defence of others and feel it is too severe.

The first sentence here could use some definition of terms. "over-reaction" and "justifiable" seem to be competing claims. The second sentence competes with the first since "feel it is too severe" is not compatible with "principles."

 

It's rather a social question, how would people think and what the dynamic would be. That is outside the scope of our present world. No ancap around.

Anarchy is everywhere. Try and pretend as they may, governments don't influence every single interaction with people.

 

Picture a bar fight. I'm not talking about the sensationalist "one punch gets thrown, a brawl ensues" like you see in the movies. I'm talking about a bunch of people some place to have a good time that feel that people being obnoxious and fighting is incompatible. Do they pile on and start kidney blasting the people involved? Or do they grab those involved and pull them off of one another, holding them until they submit to taking the fight elsewhere if they insist on even continuing now that the adrenaline of the moment has been interrupted?

 

Now imagine the fight was voluntary. As in both participants wanted to test their mettle against the other. Would interrupting this fight be an over-reaction? No because while the participants may be consenting, the people near them, that might catch a stray elbow or get a drink spilled on them didn't consent.

 

Finally, I think my putting such exchanges in terms of debt, which is an accurate description of the real world, does a good job of differentiating between defensive force and retaliation. If you think otherwise, could you help me understand in what ways it could be improved upon?