When is it okay to 'initiate' force?

[Sabras]

Hey,

 

I was discussing punishment and morality in Ancap society with my buddy. We begun to wonder whether it is ALWAYS immoral to initiate force against another individual. For example, if a person commits theft/murder/rape/assault, is it wrong to initiate force against that person after they have finished committing the act of aggression (I understand that if someone steals from you, you have every right to take that thing back, even if it involves force). If someone murders a member of my family is it immoral to seek retribution in form of initiating force against that person? 

 

I think that a lot of people would want to initiate force against that person under such circumstances, I think it's not entirely unexpected reaction, but is such thinking/emotional response compatible with Ancap philosophy or is such a person not considered an Anarcho-Capitalist?

 

In summary:

 

• Is it always immoral to initiate force against another individual? Are there any exceptions?
• Can a person who wants or does initiate force against another individual still be considered an Anarcho-Capitalist, or is that incompatible with Ancap philosophy?

Also, I want to throw one more question:

• Is punishment in Ancap society delivered only in form of social/economic ostracism as well as voluntary 'labour'?

 

[shirgall]

The circumstance that justifies the lethal use of force is the immediate, otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to yourself or the innocent.

 

Were you considering less than lethal force? If you are even in the realm of considering, you no longer have immediacy anymore and you are instead looking for restitution. There are many ways to resolve disputes, but I'm pretty sure the first step is negotiation not force.

[Jot]

My take on it...if someone breaks NAP, then he cannot claim that his property rights have been violated later on.

 

However, if you see this..

.

[Sabras]

Lethal force was on my mind when talking about murder. What about physical punishment in form of a beating? Would that be considered as a restitution even if the person would not want to be subjected to it? 

 

Sure negotiation would be the way to go, but some may not wish to negotiation and instead take 'justice' into their own hands. Could this ever be considered moral?

[Mister Mister]

It's not exactly an answer to your question, but I don't think a system of law in a free society would administer beatings or killings as a response to violent crime.

[Will Torbald]

I think that a lot of people would want to initiate force against that person under such circumstances, I think it's not entirely unexpected reaction, but is such thinking/emotional response compatible with Ancap philosophy or is such a person not considered an Anarcho-Capitalist?

 

In summary:

 

• Is it always immoral to initiate force against another individual? Are there any exceptions?
• Can a person who wants or does initiate force against another individual still be considered an Anarcho-Capitalist, or is that incompatible with Ancap philosophy?

Also, I want to throw one more question:

• Is punishment in Ancap society delivered only in form of social/economic ostracism as well as voluntary 'labour'?

 

 

Is it always immoral? I would say that no. Sometimes the initiation of the use of force can be used to save people from themselves. Imagine if a person is being hysterical and threatening to hurt themselves. It would be reasonable to restrain them, or to slap them, or to do something to make them come to their senses. Imagine a scenario where a person is otherwise being reasonable, but pushing them would save them from an incoming danger. They would understand that they were tackled as a benefit, not as an ill force.

 

If a person initiates force in his personal life he isn't necessarily not an anarcho-capitalist since to be anti-ancap would be to profit from the use of force, not just use it spuriously like a brawl.

[Jot]

Is it always immoral? I would say that no. Sometimes the initiation of the use of force can be used to save people from themselves. Imagine if a person is being hysterical and threatening to hurt themselves. It would be reasonable to restrain them, or to slap them, or to do something to make them come to their senses. Imagine a scenario where a person is otherwise being reasonable, but pushing them would save them from an incoming danger. They would understand that they were tackled as a benefit, not as an ill force.

 

If a person initiates force in his personal life he isn't necessarily not an anarcho-capitalist since to be anti-ancap would be to profit from the use of force, not just use it spuriously like a brawl.

What about this specific example?

 

One man murders someone and is not caught, would it be immoral for someone to kill him later as a result of him killing that person? And if no, is there any time interval in which this should be done?

[Will Torbald]

What about this specific example?

 

One man murders someone and is not caught, would it be immoral for someone to kill him later as a result of him killing that person? And if no, is there any time interval in which this should be done?

 

In my personal interpretation, I would say there is not "should be killed" as a form justice, but that I don't think I can justify a "should not be killed" either. It is something people "can do" to a person who has crossed the line of murder, but not an imperative. I don't see how time would degrade immoral actions. If time decayed immorality, after enough time of decay, it would become moral, and that's not logical.

[Jot]

In my personal interpretation, I would say there is not "should be killed" as a form justice, but that I don't think I can justify a "should not be killed" either. It is something people "can do" to a person who has crossed the line of murder, but not an imperative. I don't see how time would degrade immoral actions. If time decayed immorality, after enough time of decay, it would become moral, and that's not logical.

So you are saying that it is not immoral then.

Therefore once one break the NAP, aggressing against him in the future would not be an immoral action. Is there any limit to this though? What if someone breaks me an arm? (he specifically wants to break one arm only, not anything else) Can I only break one arm of his in order for me to not fall into the immoral category? What if I break both of his legs? Am I being immoral?

[Will Torbald]

So you are saying that it is not immoral then.

Therefore once one break the NAP, aggressing against him in the future would not be an immoral action. Is there any limit to this though? What if someone breaks me an arm? (he specifically wants to break one arm only, not anything else) Can I only break one arm of his in order for me to not fall into the immoral category? What if I break both of his legs? Am I being immoral?

 

The general idea is that since actions are also statements, to murder is to make a statement that you don't care for the property or life of others. Since there is no reason to have empathy for such a person, there is no reason why anyone should care about that person either. You could try to care, but it wouldn't be reasoned caring. If you were to go and break the legs of the guy who broke your arms I just simply wouldn't judge you. If you went to kill the guy who murdered your parents, for example, I wouldn't judge you either.

[Torero]

Hey,

• Is it always immoral to initiate force against another individual? Are there any exceptions?

 

Hey Sabras,

 

I would say that "when it's clear beforehand that force can be initiated and both parties give consent to that" would be the exception.

 

Otherwise boxing matches or tackles in football wouldn't be allowed anymore...

[dsayers]

First, a distinction. I think you mean to inquire about the initiation of THE USE OF force.

 

Secondly, I've found this question is more easily answered when you view it in terms of property rights. If somebody steals your bike, they owe you the value of the bike, as well as any value you had to invest to reclaim it. Another way of looking at it is that the person stealing the bike is voluntarily creating a debt. Counter-force is the settling of that debt. Yet another way of looking at it is that the person stealing the bike is asserting that property rights are not valid. Meaning that the use of force to counteract their aggression is not a violation of their waived property rights.

[Jot]

The general idea is that since actions are also statements, to murder is to make a statement that you don't care for the property or life of others. Since there is no reason to have empathy for such a person, there is no reason why anyone should care about that person either. You could try to care, but it wouldn't be reasoned caring. If you were to go and break the legs of the guy who broke your arms I just simply wouldn't judge you. If you went to kill the guy who murdered your parents, for example, I wouldn't judge you either.

What if I murdered someone who only broke my legs? Would you judge me then?

Hey Sabras,

 

I would say that "when it's clear beforehand that force can be initiated and both parties give consent to that" would be the exception.

 

Otherwise boxing matches or tackles in football wouldn't be allowed anymore...

Initiation of force is by definition immoral. What happens in a boxing match is by definition not initiation of force.

First, a distinction. I think you mean to inquire about the initiation of THE USE OF force.

 

Secondly, I've found this question is more easily answered when you view it in terms of property rights. If somebody steals your bike, they owe you the value of the bike, as well as any value you had to invest to reclaim it. Another way of looking at it is that the person stealing the bike is voluntarily creating a debt. Counter-force is the settling of that debt. Yet another way of looking at it is that the person stealing the bike is asserting that property rights are not valid. Meaning that the use of force to counteract their aggression is not a violation of their waived property rights.

Nailed it. dsayers is slayin' on these forums.

[Torero]

Initiation of force is by definition immoral. What happens in a boxing match is by definition not initiation of force.

 

No, initiation of the use of force without mutual consent is immoral.

 

A boxing match, or an SM session is the initiation of the use of force which is consential; so force: yes, immoral: no.

[Worlok]

I'm a pacifist and I carry a gun. Shaolin monks are pacifists and they developed kung-fu to defend themselves from bandits, thieves, and murderers. All life is sacred, but if that is true then using force or even taking life to defend life is permissible. If you shoot somebody after they have been stopped, captured, and tied up is not protecting or defending anything. No threat is present or may immediately become present. Even if you harm a person with a potentially lethal wound and they then become no longer a threat, it is your duty to keep them alive if you can.

 

Death as a punishment is not okay.

 

I'd say that the real question is in what ways and at what point does imprisonment become immoral? I would answer that with punishment or imprisonment based on rehabilitation. If you are imprisoned for a crime, you should be released when rehabilitated. Otherwise imprisonment is also wrong as a use of force.

[Jot]

I'm a pacifist and I carry a gun. Shaolin monks are pacifists and they developed kung-fu to defend themselves from bandits, thieves, and murderers. All life is sacred, but if that is true then using force or even taking life to defend life is permissible. If you shoot somebody after they have been stopped, captured, and tied up is not protecting or defending anything. No threat is present or may immediately become present. Even if you harm a person with a potentially lethal wound and they then become no longer a threat, it is your duty to keep them alive if you can.

 

Death as a punishment is not okay.

 

I'd say that the real question is in what ways and at what point does imprisonment become immoral? I would answer that with punishment or imprisonment based on rehabilitation. If you are imprisoned for a crime, you should be released when rehabilitated. Otherwise imprisonment is also wrong as a use of force.

"Death as a punishment is not okay"

Make the argument.

 

Why it is your duty to keep them alive if you can?

 

How do you know rehabilitation is possible for all people?

 

Why is this the only moral form of punishment?

 

"Otherwise imprisonment is also wrong as a use of force"

Please expand on this.

[Worlok]

"Death as a punishment is not okay"

Make the argument.

 

Why it is your duty to keep them alive if you can?

 

How do you know rehabilitation is possible for all people?

 

Why is this the only moral form of punishment?

 

"Otherwise imprisonment is also wrong as a use of force"

Please expand on this.

You have to initiate force to put somebody to death. Or is that not obvious?

 

I don't think there is an argument to be made on attempting to keep a person alive even if they committed a crime. It it simply a moral position. However, if you allow a person to die that you can keep from dying with a fairly minimum amount of effort, but decide to let them die, you are partially responsible for their death. You have to decide personally, from a moral standpoint if purposefully letting people die is a positive/neutral/negative thing.

 

You must initiate force to imprison a person. On virtually all scenarios, you must continue to initiate force to keep a person imprisoned. Imprisoning people for a reason other than an immediately required defensive measure (handcuffs) or rehabilitation is a continued use of force for what I can only determine is an entirely arbitrary period of time. That leads me to two conclusions. Either arbitrary prison times are potential of any crime, or you require a contract for imprisonment with the prisoner. Suppose a thief is caught and refuses all forms of restitution. Rehabilitation can potentially be forced upon them. A contract for time served with the prisoner can sometimes be acceptable, but it has to be entirely voluntary. What courts so now with plea deals makes it not voluntary.

 

Lemme know if I missed any angles

[Jot]

You have to initiate force to put somebody to death. Or is that not obvious?

 

I don't think there is an argument to be made on attempting to keep a person alive even if they committed a crime. It it simply a moral position. However, if you allow a person to die that you can keep from dying with a fairly minimum amount of effort, but decide to let them die, you are partially responsible for their death. You have to decide personally, from a moral standpoint if purposefully letting people die is a positive/neutral/negative thing.

 

You must initiate force to imprison a person. On virtually all scenarios, you must continue to initiate force to keep a person imprisoned. Imprisoning people for a reason other than an immediately required defensive measure (handcuffs) or rehabilitation is a continued use of force for what I can only determine is an entirely arbitrary period of time. That leads me to two conclusions. Either arbitrary prison times are potential of any crime, or you require a contract for imprisonment with the prisoner. Suppose a thief is caught and refuses all forms of restitution. Rehabilitation can potentially be forced upon them. A contract for time served with the prisoner can sometimes be acceptable, but it has to be entirely voluntary. What courts so now with plea deals makes it not voluntary.

 

Lemme know if I missed any angles

"You have to initiate force to put somebody to death. Or is that not obvious?"

What is obvious is that this statement is false. One single example is enough to prove this wrong. Someone has a knife and tries to stab me...he misses but I also have a knife and I stab him instead. He dies. Self-defence. No initiation of force on my part.

 

"It it simply a moral position."

Under which moral framework?

 

"However, if you allow a person to die that you can keep from dying with a fairly minimum amount of effort, but decide to let them die, you are partially responsible for their death."

No, you are not. Here you are advocating a moral system that is different from UPB and as far as I know UPB is the only valid one.

 

"You have to decide personally, from a moral standpoint if purposefully letting people die is a positive/neutral/negative thing."

So you are a moral relativist then? Hold on a second...before that you were talking about "responsible"and "It it simply a moral position."

 

 

 

"You must initiate force to imprison a person. On virtually all scenarios, you must continue to initiate force to keep a person imprisoned. Imprisoning people for a reason other than an immediately required defensive measure (handcuffs) or rehabilitation is a continued use of force for what I can only determine is an entirely arbitrary period of time. That leads me to two conclusions. Either arbitrary prison times are potential of any crime, or you require a contract for imprisonment with the prisoner. Suppose a thief is caught and refuses all forms of restitution. Rehabilitation can potentially be forced upon them. A contract for time served with the prisoner can sometimes be acceptable, but it has to be entirely voluntary. What courts so now with plea deals makes it not voluntary."

 

See dsayers argument above and tell me what you think about it.

[dsayers]

You have to initiate force to put somebody to death. Or is that not obvious?

Any use of force has an initiation. Hence the importance of the distinction "initiation of THE USE OF force." If a person assaults me and the only way for me to stop the assault is to use counter-force, my use of force will have an initiation, but is not the initiation of THE USE OF force.

[Worlok]

"You have to initiate force to put somebody to death. Or is that not obvious?"

What is obvious is that this statement is false. One single example is enough to prove this wrong. Someone has a knife and tries to stab me...he misses but I also have a knife and I stab him instead. He dies. Self-defence. No initiation of force on my part.

 

"It it simply a moral position."

Under which moral framework?

 

"However, if you allow a person to die that you can keep from dying with a fairly minimum amount of effort, but decide to let them die, you are partially responsible for their death."

No, you are not. Here you are advocating a moral system that is different from UPB and as far as I know UPB is the only valid one.

 

"You have to decide personally, from a moral standpoint if purposefully letting people die is a positive/neutral/negative thing."

So you are a moral relativist then? Hold on a second...before that you were talking about "responsible"and "It it simply a moral position."

 

 

 

"You must initiate force to imprison a person. On virtually all scenarios, you must continue to initiate force to keep a person imprisoned. Imprisoning people for a reason other than an immediately required defensive measure (handcuffs) or rehabilitation is a continued use of force for what I can only determine is an entirely arbitrary period of time. That leads me to two conclusions. Either arbitrary prison times are potential of any crime, or you require a contract for imprisonment with the prisoner. Suppose a thief is caught and refuses all forms of restitution. Rehabilitation can potentially be forced upon them. A contract for time served with the prisoner can sometimes be acceptable, but it has to be entirely voluntary. What courts so now with plea deals makes it not voluntary."

 

See dsayers argument above and tell me what you think about it.

 

 

I find morality to be entirely subjective and that UPB is in no way "universal."

 

If leaving a person to or letting a person die does not indirectly make you partially responsible for it occurring, then pointing a gun at a person and pulling the trigger does not make you responsible for murder. You don't kill that person. You pulled a trigger. The gun doesn't kill, it fires a bullet. The bullet, unless hit to the brain or high enough on the spine does not kill, it causes organ damage. Organ damage doesn't kill, it simply is the effect of which bleeding occurs. Bleeding doesn't kill, it simply causes the organs to stop function. Organs no longer functioning kills you. If you knowingly allow something to occur that you could stop, you are partially responsible. If you don't move out of the way of traffic and nobody can stop in time, it's pretty much all your fault that you get hit and die. Doing nothing is an action. What's important is not whether you are responsible for something or not, what's important is how much of that responsibility is yours.

 

Yeah, I've read his argument.  He kind of iterated it V Here V

                                                                                 \ /          \ /

Any use of force has an initiation. Hence the importance of the distinction "initiation of THE USE OF force." If a person assaults me and the only way for me to stop the assault is to use counter-force, my use of force will have an initiation, but is not the initiation of THE USE OF force.

 

 

When put into a set of steps all force requires initiation of actions resulting in force occurring. When one performs actions that result in force, force is used.  However, the "initial"  use of force in a conflict is what one would be referring to, not the initiation of all actions resulting in force being used (the use of force). All actions are initiated, however a defining moment would be the beginning of a conflict. Was your point that "initiation of the use of force" as a term has a special definition outside of plain English that I pointed out? I'm not "in the loop" when it comes to specialized terminology. I speak and read in plain English and am aware that I miss a lot of that stuff. Again, are you attempting to say that "the use of force" is a specialized term that is intended to mean something different than initiating actions that result in your using force?