Posted on 09/21/2003 6:25:48 PM PDT by cpforlife.org
I can make out his meaning because I've spoken with OWK before. However, I think he is having similar trouble seeing your point.
I will try to step into the middle here because it is an interesting discussion.
There are two big issues. The first is that this concept that you have a right to any behvior that does not involve coersion is contested. You believe it to be true, but others do not. In order to impose this belief, you will have to coerce. You may believe it is justified, but those you coerce do not agree. Therefore, is it truly justified? Is it justified if you are in the majority but not if you are in the minority? Or is there an absolute standard to which you can appeal that would make you justified even if you were the only one?
Second, coersion takes on many forms. Suppose someone is looking at my wife, making her uncomfortable, and making both she and I concerned that he may cause her harm. Is that coersion? Am I justified in applying coersion - even physical force - as a response? Does he actually have to do something forceful before I can respond with force?
Real standards of right and wrong, based on a fundamental understanding of the operating principles of human societies, don't yield these kinds of questions. The non-coersion standard does not have the strength to stand up as such a fundamental understanding because of the problems that it creates.
So, OWK is clear - if you start it I am justified if I finish it, but nobody is justified to start it.
Betty Boop is also clear - not everyone agrees with OWK which means he will have to start something. The definitions of who started it and who finished it are often not clear, and it is exactly these unclear circumstances for which law is made.
One final interesting point. Those who do the most worrying about their rights are probably those who are least secure in them. Those who know the source of their rights are very secure, even in a nation like China which will not secure the rights of its citizens. The very wealthy and the very poor don't worry about their money, only those in the middle. It is the same with rights.
If your abiding passion is protecting your rights, maybe they're not inalienable.
Shalom.
Behaviors that do no initiate force or fraud, are peaceful, and cannot inhibit anyone else's ability to act in accordance with their will. Whether others believe this to be so or not, is irrelevant. It remains so, whether they wish it to be, or not.
So in order for someone to declare peaceful behaviors (those not initiating force or fraud) as anything other than a right, they must initiate force or fraud against otherwise peaceful men to restrain those behaviors.
In declaring their willingness to initiate force or fraud to restrain otherwise peaceful behaviors (those behaviors not initiating force or fraud), they must forfeit any moral claim to any protection the notion of rights might afford to their own peaceful behaviors.
In other words, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
In order to impose this belief, you will have to coerce.
I have no desire to impose any view, and will not impose any view. I live my life as a free man. I have decided that state will do what state will do, and I will live free in spite of them. I will ignore them.
The only time I might act with force, would be in response to force initiated by others (either state or individuals). But note that my potential choice to employ force in my own defense, does not constitute coercion.
You may believe it is justified, but those you coerce do not agree. Therefore, is it truly justified?
Once again, I have no intention of coercing anyone. I simply intend to live my life freely and peacefully, initiating neither force nor fraud. Others may live as they choose, provided they do not initiate force or fraud upon me, or those I value. Unless and until this happens, they will have nothing but voluntary interaction from me.
Is it justified if you are in the majority but not if you are in the minority? Or is there an absolute standard to which you can appeal that would make you justified even if you were the only one?
I live peacefully. I do not initiate force or fraud. Any other actions I may undertake are morally justifiable, whether others believe them so, or not. The fact that I happen to be in the minority, or the majority, is irrelevant.
Truth, is truth.
Prove it.
Shalom.
We delegate to government the function of self-defense. ("To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.") The police, the courts, the jails, and the military (if they do their jobs properly) are acting as our agents in exercising our individual right of self-defense. This governmental use of force is a moral enterprise. It's the only universally acceptable reason that we have government.
As for the existence of this moral right of self-defense against aggression, it is (again, quoting Jefferson) self-evident. It's an obvious attribute of life. I don't see any need to dig any deeper to justify the right of self-defense, and I think it's a wild stretch to claim that no such right exists. Were that so, then aggressors would be free to kill and plunder at will, and no human society could survive.
Because recognition of the truth of the axioms established on this foundation, often lead to conclusions that people would rather not reach.
IMHO.
Your discussion (about the guy making your wife nervous) above reminded me of the Steven Spielberg / Tom Cruise futuristic movie Minority Report where the police received advance knowledge of a crime before it was committed. They arrived at the scene of the crime moments before it happened and arrested the (alleged) perpetrator before s/he could perform the dastardly deed. One can think and talk about (most) any crimes, but until it's actually committed is it a crime?
FWIW, and I realize it's very little, I understood OWK very well.
It's that word "clearly" that trips up your argument.
As my math teacher once told me, when the book says, "It is obvious," it means they don't want to waste the pages necessary to prove it.
Shalom.
And the moderators zorched it (along with the thread it was in).
I'm trying to hammer the proof into a stand-alone essay.
Time's been a little tight... but I'll try to finish it soon.
What about a crime that was illegal in the time that the "enforcers" exist, but not in the time the crime is about to be committed.
The real issue is the notion that everyone in the world would recognize the same set of circumstances as "initiation of force" without debate, and that they would all agree that initiation of force is always wrong.
OWK said he doesn't have to change their mind as long as they leave him alone. But he has that luxury because he lives in a society that agrees with him. What if they changed their collective mind?
Who is OWK to say they are wrong?
Shalom.
Please ping me to the thread. I doubt you will manage to do so as it has been tried by many brilliant men before. But you may be the brilliant man to succeed where they have all failed.
Shalom.
Yup.
But he has that luxury because he lives in a society that agrees with him.
Coulda fooled me.
What if they changed their collective mind?
They already have.
I am subjected to potential initiated force on the part of my do-gooder neighbors (collected into an entity they call government) all the time.
I do my best to avoid it.
I may ultimately find myself with no alternative but to defend myself.
If that day comes, I will die knowing my actions were moral.
That is enough.
Of that I can be sure, since you define your own morality. It's the same as Rush Limbaugh's claim of zero mistakes, since he determines what mistakes are.
I hope that the judge, if there is one, agrees with you.
Shalom.
No problem. I was already done with the subject. I didn't respond to that last post because my tolerance limit had been reached. You and I have different threshholds.
A grandiose assertion.
On what do you base this purely personal opinion?
Shalom.
Must be. It couldn't possibly be that you are incapable of seeing it.
Simply put, if you assert that something is right or wrong, that's just your opinion. I'm sure you've heard the old saw, "Don't force your morality on my body." Ironically, that is used to defend a person who wants to initiate force against another in order to deprive that other of his/her right to life.
Insertion of the word "clearly" is a way to say, "Everyone would agree." But the reality of mankind is that everyone will not agree. Therefore there will be winners and losers.
Unless there is some universal standard, some moral law that is above humanity and to which humanity is subject, you can not say, "this is right and that is wrong," or even, "this is clearly right and that is clearly wrong." You must appeal to a moral authority in order to do so.
As a Christian, I do appeal to a moral authority. And, according to that moral authority, the Libertarian notion of "consent" is not sufficient upon which to base a moral law.
Shalom.
Hillary would probably be happy to have you on her team.
Shalom.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.