4 ms·

The non-aggression principle. The only time violence or the threat thereof is acceptable is in response to unprovoked violence or threats against you and yours.

lr4444lr 9y ago
And whom do the elderly, physically weak women, and children call when faced with this threat? Who responds to hold-ups, hostages, organized racketeering, riots, and theft after the fact? The real world is a little more complicated than the "Don't be a d*ck" principle. Who even determines whether thr level threat rose to violence or who instigated?
- CamTin 9y ago
  > Who even determines whether thr level threat rose to violence or who instigated? Certainly not police departments or unions. They shoot first, never ask questions, and cover up for officers regardless of the circumstances of a shooting. The answer to "Was the officer justified in shooting this civilian?" is always, according to cops themselves, yes, irrespective of circumstances.
  - lr4444lr 9y ago
    So then who?
    - CamTin 9y ago
      In a libertarian fantasyland? I guess nobody, or their family, or a private security force that they hire. In a functioning democracy? A police force that is held accountable by elected officials.
- Cyberdog 9y ago
  > And whom do the elderly, physically weak women, and children call when faced with this threat? Private security forces (that would respond to actual crimes instead of looking for busy-work like busting people smoking the wrong things or having sex the wrong way) or friends and family. Or, in the case of (hopefully) trained adults, they will carry their own threat equalizers. > Who responds to hold-ups, hostages, organized racketeering, riots, and theft after the fact? After the fact? Well, currently, the police lolololo. When seconds count, they are minutes away. > Who even determines whether thr level threat rose to violence or who instigated? Some libertarians envision complicated matrices of private courts that would settle these sorts of things. Me, I'm not so sure that sort of thing would work. I don't know what the answer is, but I know that the monopoly-on-violence state, under which true equality is impossible, is just not the answer.
maxlybbert 9y ago
Imagine, we can get rid of the criminal justice system if we just convince everyone to be nice to each other!
PhasmaFelis 9y ago
So your entire solution to violent crime is "hit them back"? What do I do if the criminal has a bigger stick?
golergka 9y ago
In your doctrine, can you ask someone else for help with response to the violence? Can that someone make his response not the same moment, but when he actually meets the guy who threatened you and yours? Because these two things seem rational, and cops are exactly what you get with them.
- Cyberdog 9y ago
  > In your doctrine, can you ask someone else for help with response to the violence? Of course. > Can that someone make his response not the same moment, but when he actually meets the guy who threatened you and yours? Well, it would be kind of dumb if they responded to violence when the violence isn't even there. > Because these two things seem rational, and cops are exactly what you get with them. No, not even close. For one, police are not altruistic; they are doing a (government) job and earning a (government) paycheck. Second, as mentioned elsewhere, police do a whole hell of a lot more instigating violence against non-violent people than they do responding to violence with equal force.

lr4444lr 9y ago

And whom do the elderly, physically weak women, and children call when faced with this threat? Who responds to hold-ups, hostages, organized racketeering, riots, and theft after the fact? The real world is a little more complicated than the "Don't be a d*ck" principle. Who even determines whether thr level threat rose to violence or who instigated?

CamTin 9y ago
> Who even determines whether thr level threat rose to violence or who instigated? Certainly not police departments or unions. They shoot first, never ask questions, and cover up for officers regardless of the circumstances of a shooting. The answer to "Was the officer justified in shooting this civilian?" is always, according to cops themselves, yes, irrespective of circumstances.
- lr4444lr 9y ago
  So then who?
  - CamTin 9y ago
    In a libertarian fantasyland? I guess nobody, or their family, or a private security force that they hire. In a functioning democracy? A police force that is held accountable by elected officials.
Cyberdog 9y ago
> And whom do the elderly, physically weak women, and children call when faced with this threat? Private security forces (that would respond to actual crimes instead of looking for busy-work like busting people smoking the wrong things or having sex the wrong way) or friends and family. Or, in the case of (hopefully) trained adults, they will carry their own threat equalizers. > Who responds to hold-ups, hostages, organized racketeering, riots, and theft after the fact? After the fact? Well, currently, the police lolololo. When seconds count, they are minutes away. > Who even determines whether thr level threat rose to violence or who instigated? Some libertarians envision complicated matrices of private courts that would settle these sorts of things. Me, I'm not so sure that sort of thing would work. I don't know what the answer is, but I know that the monopoly-on-violence state, under which true equality is impossible, is just not the answer.

maxlybbert 9y ago

Imagine, we can get rid of the criminal justice system if we just convince everyone to be nice to each other!

PhasmaFelis 9y ago

So your entire solution to violent crime is "hit them back"? What do I do if the criminal has a bigger stick?

golergka 9y ago

In your doctrine, can you ask someone else for help with response to the violence? Can that someone make his response not the same moment, but when he actually meets the guy who threatened you and yours? Because these two things seem rational, and cops are exactly what you get with them.

Cyberdog 9y ago
> In your doctrine, can you ask someone else for help with response to the violence? Of course. > Can that someone make his response not the same moment, but when he actually meets the guy who threatened you and yours? Well, it would be kind of dumb if they responded to violence when the violence isn't even there. > Because these two things seem rational, and cops are exactly what you get with them. No, not even close. For one, police are not altruistic; they are doing a (government) job and earning a (government) paycheck. Second, as mentioned elsewhere, police do a whole hell of a lot more instigating violence against non-violent people than they do responding to violence with equal force.