4 ms·

> Let's say the US retaliates against Iran's threat of force (let's just assume it makes a legitimate threat of force) and kills uninvolved Iranian citizens as

> Let's say the US retaliates against Iran's threat of force (let's just assume it makes a legitimate threat of force) and kills uninvolved Iranian citizens as a side-effect. Assume the US made reasonable attempts to minimize civilian casualties. > Was the US's force against those civilians retaliatory, or initiatory? I would say the former. Iran initiated the force and is morally culpable for those deaths. Eh, why do you think Iran is responsible for these deaths and not the US? Threats and disagreements are between the rulers of both countries, why on the earth should civilians be somehow involved and the slaughter be justified? > If you agree with me here, we can procede. But this is important. I am saying that when the US (for example; imagine, now, that it is a mininal government) levies taxes to establish basic, necessary protection of rights (minimal police, courts, and military), it is analogous. It is retaliatory. Why should some group of people decide what personally I need and impose payments for that "service" upon me? Did I have a say? > The threat of initiated force being retaliated against is robbers, theives, foreign countries that would invade, etc. We know all these will run rampant without government (at least you can agree with me that that is true given the way society is now). It doens't have to be a specific thief or other rights-violator; we know they are out there, and that government is necessary to protect rights. So, basically, to protect the people from robbery, we need to institute a larger theft body? Sounds like a good plan. Now, what if I don't like the way government does its job protecting my rights? What if I find the govt performs this task in an inefficient and quite costly manner? What is I'm a pacifist and I don't want anybody to protect me? I can't opt out of the government "protection"; I can't switch the provider either.

javert 13y ago
> Eh, why do you think Iran is responsible for these deaths and not the US? Because that was how I phrased the hypothetical. > Threats and disagreements are between the rulers of both countries, why on the earth should civilians be somehow involved and the slaughter be justified? Because in the hypothetical retaliatory force was being used to defend US citizens---something I believe is moral and which the guy I was talking to seems to agree with. I don't think you are in agreement so I don't think we can progress at this point in the discussion. We would have to backtrack first to talking about retaliatory vs. initiatory force. That is too much to bite of in an HN comment discussion. As a side note, you could switch the names of the countries, it doesn't matter.

javert 13y ago

> Eh, why do you think Iran is responsible for these deaths and not the US? Because that was how I phrased the hypothetical. > Threats and disagreements are between the rulers of both countries, why on the earth should civilians be somehow involved and the slaughter be justified? Because in the hypothetical retaliatory force was being used to defend US citizens---something I believe is moral and which the guy I was talking to seems to agree with. I don't think you are in agreement so I don't think we can progress at this point in the discussion. We would have to backtrack first to talking about retaliatory vs. initiatory force. That is too much to bite of in an HN comment discussion. As a side note, you could switch the names of the countries, it doesn't matter.