Why the opposition to pacifism?

[Cognitive Dissident]

You have every right to exclude others from your property, but if they walk onto your property they don't give up their self ownership.

Right. Who do you think is disagreeing with this?

I doubt very much that you'll find anyone here, even amongst those who think trespass is a wrong in itself, who believe it should be punished with slavery or the death penalty.

What this has to do with pacifism is beyond me.

Harming another person is messing with their property. Even in self defense it is aggression agaisnt their person, it's only okay to damage your own property.

That's just plain asinine.  Harming the property of one who initiated aggression, while in the act of self-defense is clearly not only "okay," but a moral imperative, in the event that it justly saves a life.

[John Shaw]

You have every right to exclude others from your property, but if they walk onto your property they don't give up their self ownership.

Right. Who do you think is disagreeing with this?

I doubt very much that you'll find anyone here, even amongst those who think trespass is a wrong in itself, who believe it should be punished with slavery or the death penalty.

What this has to do with pacifism is beyond me.

Harming another person is messing with their property. Even in self defense it is aggression agaisnt their person, it's only okay to damage your own property.

That's just plain asinine.  Harming the property of one who initiated aggression, while in the act of self-defense is clearly not only "okay," but a moral imperative, in the event that it justly saves a life.

Dude, he be trollin'

[Cognitive Dissident]

Once someone else directly violates your rights, they forfeit their rights to you to an equal degree. Why is that so hard for you to see?

I'v heard many libertarians say that, but it makes no sense to me.

Thats because you're 19 and STUPID.............. game over.

If we go by the logic that your retaliation is allowable to the degree of their initiation, wouldn't you only have a right to threaten them? If you harm, or even kill, them before they can do so to you, they have not violated your rights, so how do they violate your rights to compel such action? I believe you are following what is called circular logic.

Ok, you win. Have fun getting assfucked by psycho man.

I'll be right over.

I LOL'd!

[Pizzly]

That's just plain asinine.  Harming the property of one who initiated aggression, while in the act of self-defense is clearly not only "okay," but a moral imperative, in the event that it justly saves a life.

I want to know why.The burden of proof is on the one who takes action, you. You wish to damage their property and I wish to know how this is reconciled with the principle of private property. You do not own their property or body, but taking direct physical action against them is you taking control over their property against their wishes. I see that as absolutely inconsistent with the most basic libertarian values.

[Cognitive Dissident]

That's just plain asinine.  Harming the property of one who initiated aggression, while in the act of self-defense is clearly not only "okay," but a moral imperative, in the event that it justly saves a life.

I want to know why.The burden of proof is on the one who takes action, you. You wish to damage their property and I wish to know how this is reconciled with the principle of private property. You do not own their property or body, but taking direct physical action against them is you taking control over their property against their wishes. I see that as absolutely inconsistent with the most basic libertarian values.

The reason is because the basis for morality is life itself.  If you're going to set up a system of rules to protect the thing that matters, you're not going to disarm people from protecting it.  Besides, in your silly example, I'm not the one who takes the action.  The person initiating force is.  I'm responding.  You claimed I "wish" to damage their property.  I never cited a "wish" to do so.  When a person aggresses, he forfeits his rights to the extent necessary to defend against the aggression, because this is what is necessary to defend life and property in the first place.

You need to study ethics.  While I don't see Ayn Rand as right about everything, she hits the nail on the head in the first chapter of her book: "The Virtue of Selfishness," "The Objectivist Ethics," in which she sets up the only rational framework for ethics.  You could also learn a lot from the chapter "The Ethics of Emergencies," in the same book.

[Turd Ferguson]

That's just plain asinine.  Harming the property of one who initiated aggression, while in the act of self-defense is clearly not only "okay," but a moral imperative, in the event that it justly saves a life.

I want to know why.The burden of proof is on the one who takes action, you. You wish to damage their property and I wish to know how this is reconciled with the principle of private property. You do not own their property or body, but taking direct physical action against them is you taking control over their property against their wishes. I see that as absolutely inconsistent with the most basic libertarian values.

Thats because you are obviously full throttle fucking insane.  Yeah, lets all just sit back and hold hands and smell the flowers while someone tries beating the pulp out of us............ yeah, sounds like a good time to me.



Or you are just a troll............. shame on me for letting you suck me into your insane world for so long

[Pizzly]

That's just plain asinine.  Harming the property of one who initiated aggression, while in the act of self-defense is clearly not only "okay," but a moral imperative, in the event that it justly saves a life.

I want to know why.The burden of proof is on the one who takes action, you. You wish to damage their property and I wish to know how this is reconciled with the principle of private property. You do not own their property or body, but taking direct physical action against them is you taking control over their property against their wishes. I see that as absolutely inconsistent with the most basic libertarian values.

Thats because you are obviously full throttle fucking insane.  Yeah, lets all just sit back and hold hands and smell the flowers while someone tries beating the pulp out of us............ yeah, sounds like a good time to me.



Or you are just a troll............. shame on me for letting you suck me into your insane world for so long

See, I find it difficult to respond someone who appears to not care. Call me a troll and blatantly lie about my position? This whole board is full of posters who use the exact same tactics as statists. You rely on gap arguing and it appears you intentionally distort your own view of my posting. I don't even see a point in responding to this post anymore, since you people obviously are just posting responses to try and provoke me.

[Rillion]

The reason is because the basis for morality is life itself.  If you're going to set up a system of rules to protect the thing that matters, you're not going to disarm people from protecting it. 

Exactly.  Pizzly has subverted life to property, when in reality life is the only reason that property matters at all. 

[Cognitive Dissident]

That's just plain asinine.  Harming the property of one who initiated aggression, while in the act of self-defense is clearly not only "okay," but a moral imperative, in the event that it justly saves a life.

I want to know why.The burden of proof is on the one who takes action, you. You wish to damage their property and I wish to know how this is reconciled with the principle of private property. You do not own their property or body, but taking direct physical action against them is you taking control over their property against their wishes. I see that as absolutely inconsistent with the most basic libertarian values.

Thats because you are obviously full throttle fucking insane.  Yeah, lets all just sit back and hold hands and smell the flowers while someone tries beating the pulp out of us............ yeah, sounds like a good time to me.



Or you are just a troll............. shame on me for letting you suck me into your insane world for so long

See, I find it difficult to respond someone who appears to not care. Call me a troll and blatantly lie about my position? This whole board is full of posters who use the exact same tactics as statists. You rely on gap arguing and it appears you intentionally distort your own view of my posting. I don't even see a point in responding to this post anymore, since you people obviously are just posting responses to try and provoke me.

Now that will justly get you tagged as a troll.  I really didn't see a lot of trolly behavior from you outside this thread, but statements like the above are classic trolling.  This whole thread reeks of trolling on your part.

[John Shaw]

Now that will justly get you tagged as a troll.  I really didn't see a lot of trolly behavior from you outside this thread, but statements like the above are classic trolling.  This whole thread reeks of trolling on your part.

In some ways, Ken, it's better that your troll detector is set to a lower sensitivity anyhow. It's sort of a curse to see it before anyone else, because a lot of people assume that you're just being an asshole rather than sniffing genuine bullshit.

[Andy]

Now that will justly get you tagged as a troll.  I really didn't see a lot of trolly behavior from you outside this thread, but statements like the above are classic trolling.  This whole thread reeks of trolling on your part.

In some ways, Ken, it's better that your troll detector is set to a lower sensitivity anyhow. It's sort of a curse to see it before anyone else, because a lot of people assume that you're just being an asshole rather than sniffing genuine bullshit.

Yeah I'm thinking you guys are right now. At first, since this was the only trolly thread I figured the guy was just a retard about this particular issue. And I'll admit that my responses have not been terribly constructive, but plenty of people tried to engage him and that stuff about statist tactics is just too much.

[dalebert]

So just to clarify your position, let me ask you a question. If someone just walked up to you, for no apparent reason and started wailing on your face with no help around and he was yelling "IM GONNA FUCKIN KILL YOU!!", assuming you had no way of running away from the attacker, are you telling me that you would just lie there and take the beating without even trying to save your own life?

What I would strive to do is get away from him, perhaps push him off, defend myself from his blows, perhaps find a way to restrain him, distract him, everything I could creatively come up with short of attacking him back.  I've already admitted that I am an animal with instincts.  That doesn't mean I would for sure fight back, but it's certainly a possibility that probably has to do with the pain involved.  I'm not perfect.  I only have so much willpower.  I'm not John Galt.  There are sadistic serial killers out there, but we're getting into a pretty rare scenario at that point.  You might have someone who hates YOU so much they want to make you suffer, but I would posit that that's something that we have a tremendous amount of control over by our own dealings with other people, particularly if we strive to love everyone and are very conscientious about de-escalating conflict.  Much more likely that if someone is attacking me, they want something or they're out to just kill me.  In the latter case, my odds probably weren't that great to begin with because they'll be trying to catch me off guard.  If they hit me hard enough, I may be more stunned than in pain.  There's plenty of possibility for me to choose not to attack and be successful.  I might die because I chose not to attack back but there are plenty of scenarios where I might be more likely to live because I chose not to attack back.

Let me ask you something.  If you see a man raping a woman, do you KNOW that attacking him will result in the best possible outcome for all the innocent people involved (you, the woman, potential future victims)?

[Cognitive Dissident]

Now that will justly get you tagged as a troll.  I really didn't see a lot of trolly behavior from you outside this thread, but statements like the above are classic trolling.  This whole thread reeks of trolling on your part.

In some ways, Ken, it's better that your troll detector is set to a lower sensitivity anyhow. It's sort of a curse to see it before anyone else, because a lot of people assume that you're just being an asshole rather than sniffing genuine bullshit.

Yeah I'm thinking you guys are right now. At first, since this was the only trolly thread I figured the guy was just a retard about this particular issue. And I'll admit that my responses have not been terribly constructive, but plenty of people tried to engage him and that stuff about statist tactics is just too much.

I'd noticed the heavy volume of his "whadayathink?" threads, but didn't consider them to be potential trollbait.  Perhaps it's that he's a lousy troll and it took so many tries to engage anyone, or perhaps he's just like that. 

He reminds me of that caller to the show a couple years ago (something like James in Michigan--both may be wrong) who would broach subjects half-seriously, and it became clear after about six calls that each time the intent was to start an argument in which he would attempt to somehow "prove" libertarianism "wrong," or at least get the hosts steamed.  I think that series of exchanges ended in them accusing him of being a crank.

[Turd Ferguson]

Let me ask you something.  If you see a man raping a woman, do you KNOW that attacking him will result in the best possible outcome for all the innocent people involved (you, the woman, potential future victims)?

There are a few variables in that situation that we must clarify before a decision can be made. Do I have a firearm? Does the rapist have a knife to her throat? Am I a block away? Am I 75 ft away? Do I have a clear shot at the rapist? What if I miss him and hit her? Who knows, in the case of rape, perhaps it would be better for the woman to allow hersef to be raped instead of being killed in the process of fighting back. Im speaking more in terms of someone directly attacking YOU, not another person, and you see the insanity in his eyes and the sense of purpose he has in applying his fuck-kicking of you, relentlessly pounding your body and face to the point that your only hope is to fight back or die. I dont think anyone here is saying someone should just go balls-out-hero and mindlessly intervene in a situation where a rapist has a victim in his clutches. Im talking in terms of animalistic life or death situations where if you dont act, you are pretty much guaranteed to die.

[John Shaw]

I'd noticed the heavy volume of his "whadayathink?" threads, but didn't consider them to be potential trollbait.  Perhaps it's that he's a lousy troll and it took so many tries to engage anyone, or perhaps he's just like that.  

He reminds me of that caller to the show a couple years ago (something like James in Michigan--both may be wrong) who would broach subjects half-seriously, and it became clear after about six calls that each time the intent was to start an argument in which he would attempt to somehow "prove" libertarianism "wrong," or at least get the hosts steamed.  I think that series of exchanges ended in them accusing him of being a crank.

Eric. EricFromMichigan on the boards. Massive troll. He used the same methods as this dude, and the same methods as Nathyn.

Ask an innocuous seeming question that leads to a giant trollfest. Repeat until everyone hates you, then call everyone "intolerant" and "statists"