It's not about "proof", it's about "I'm convinced enough that I don't care if I get charged for aggressing because I'm going to be worse off if I don't." Proof is far too elusive a target to bother with.
Let me just try to understand this difference. You are convinced A is plotting against you, but you cannot prove it, so you kill A anyway?
And since you can imagine a situation where you yourself could be convinced someone is plotting against you, but cannot prove it sufficiently to successfully investigate it and take it to court, such that you wish to keep open the option of preemptively acting against this person or group, you don't associate yourself with any term that would tend to oppose such action.
Ok. I can understand that.
I consider it just another argumentum ad absurdum, an lifeboat scenario designed to be uncivilized in order to negate a civilized respose,
but I do understand it.
Thank you.
It is a person's property which is an extension of themselves according to my understanding of what you probably believe. You are damaging their property by moving it. Is it not a crime if I break your window while you aren't home?
Indeed, as you said it is about standing up for one's choices.
Yes, it would be damaging their property. However, you set up the situation in order to present a small damage to prevent a larger damage.
Just like the "fat guy stops runaway trolley" scenarios.
This is about interactions where nobody has acted in an overtly aggressive manner that could be termed aggression but you are nonetheless convinced that a threat is imminent and that taking action now is both possible and will stop the threat before it becomes immediate.
Ok, you're absolutely correct.
Once in a while, a paranoid psychotic who sees plots where there are none is going to go postal.
To assert that a voluntary society cannot exist based upon the possible actions of psychopaths is, in my opinion, silly.
I have seen that also. On the flipside, I've also seen idiotic statements like "If there's a road monopoly we'll just build helicopters" and "Nobody will transact with the terrorists!", terrorism being one of the situations that can't be easily handled by a voluntaryist or otherwise non-preemptive policy toward violence.
First, let me know when a road monopoly has occurred. Please.
On terrorism, of course it could be countered, because "terrorist" is a false and misleading label, designed to make people afraid and go crawling to government.
A murderer is a murderer, and I don't care why they did it. Plotting murder is plotting murder, again I don't care why they wish to do it.
Murderers are handled the same way as any other criminal.
I've understood it as I've seen it presented by a lot of other people and they include these ideas. If your version of it doesn't include this then that's fine, but don't say I don't understand when I've spoken with people who claimed to be voluntaryists and have explicitly said what I quoted.
That a road monopoly will spur the use of air-cars?
Don't get all offended that somebody actually dislikes a label you choose for yourself and there's absolutely nothing you can do about it because other people are ruining the name for you. Unfair as it is, you stick by a label that's shared with idiots, you deal with consequences. That's true of every label anybody would voluntarily adopt, and no less true of voluntaryism.
Fair enough.
What I wanted to know was why someone would deliberately NOT wish to interact with other people on a voluntary basis. As you point out, labels are often useless in a "you are a" sense, but when I can self-define the word and say "I am a..." just about any label works just fine.
Such as, "I am a liberal like Thomas Jefferson was a liberal, not like Diane Feinswine."
I really really really don't like the word. But the ideas are also wrong in their own right. Not just the ones that don't apply to you, but your apparent infatuation with proof like it will remove all responsibility from you for your actions somehow.
It is this "remove all responsibility" thing that really bothers me.
If I act, I am responsible for my action. If I act in self-defense, I am still responsible for my action, my action is merely justified by the social standards we all live by, because there is proof my action was in self-defense.
That is why killing in self-defense is not murder, even though it is exactly the same act.
Because the last thing I advocate is that anybody is free from responsbility for their actions.
It is this specifically that makes me wonder just who you have been talking to. No one I have ever seen last more than 30 seconds takes such a completely stupid position as that they are free from responsibility for their actions.
If you use pre-emptive force go right ahead but your punishment for not finding a more diplomatic solution is that you will be an aggressor and treated appropriately. Proof doesn't factor into the equation anywhere.
Of course it does. At the trial. There will be a trial, even you admit that, because each is held responsible for their actions.