Strongly disagree that this should be an article at all. Everything you want to cover here is covered by the right of private property.
But there is a more serious problem.
This whole idea of non-initiation of force is an error that lives deeply in parts of the libertarian community.
Harm is not a binary. It is a gradient. There are many types of harm that fall short of violence. This idea of non-initiation of force is morally appealing nonsense. It’s a prohibition on retaliation against a myriad of lesser offenses.
You cannot have a justice system without the initiation of force.
If someone steals a whole bunch of EOS, and we involve real-world authorities in trying to recover it / prosecute them, we are initiating violence.
How about negative externalities? If a member of the EOS community is about to sell bullets to a warlord who has innocent people kneeling beside a freshly dug ditch — that’s a peaceful, voluntary transaction. Are we prohibited from initiating violence to disrupt it?
I used to be a part of the non-aggression club. I understand it. It took me a long time to find my way out.
I would urge you to ask yourself whether you’re doing verbal gymnastics to preserve an appealing ideology: «the non-initiation of force.»
It’s appealing because it’s simple. Unfortunately, it isn’t accurate, and you can’t build a justice system on top of this idea.
It becomes a prohibition on retaliation.
Запись редактировалась последний раз: May 31, 2018, 1:24 am