Defensive violence against government agents...

[ObserveandReport]

This is a fascinating article on the prospects: http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2016/04/in-defense-of-defensive-violence-against-government-agents/ 

 

I just stumbled upon this website today and I love it!

 

 

[NotDarkYet]

Regardless of the moral justification - I don't think that is how we win the hearts/minds of the world.

 

Plus, they have the most guns.

[ObserveandReport]

Regardless of the moral justification - I don't think that is how we win the hearts/minds of the world.

 

Plus, they have the most guns.

Oh, I think this article in particular had an inward looking aim. I think you need to accept the NAP, then realize that the moral category separation is faulty.  It's far from a revelation, but is something I personally rarely think about. He uses the example of what the general person thinks, but it seems that assumptions necessary for his argument are those specific to Libertarians. Winning hearts and minds is very important though, I agree. However, it's wonderful when you can work from statist premises and wind up with Libertarian conclusions. Stef essentially does the same when he'll describe the properties of theft and then analogize to taxes. Plus the controversial nature of the article is an attention grabber. This is also a useful aspect of outreach. 

 

Note the very important distinction the author draws at the bottom of the paper "Note that I focus solely on the ethics of defensive killing against immediate threats from democratic government agents. I am not here discussing punishment, whether anyone might ever deserve to die, whether killing anyone might ever be justified as an end in itself, or whether violence is useful to overturn laws or produce social change. Many philosophers and activists believe that non-violent civil disobedience is both morally superior to and more effective than violent resistance in changing unjust laws.[viii] They might be correct, but that is not my concern here."