Is revenge for the initiation of force, other than in self-defense, moral?

Yes

7 (58.3%)

I'm a pussy

5 (41.7%)

Total Members Voted: 7

[BonerJoe]

No, raping a person is threatening their life.

How?

Hell even punching a person is threatening their life.

I'm not talking about punching, I'm talking about non-consentual sex.

[MacFall]

Why is it considered "excessive" force only AFTER the fact, and not self-defense?

Because in the act of self-defense one does not know what is proportional force. If you are awakened by a thug with a meat cleaver in the middle of the night, you can reasonably assume that he's there to harm you and not to cut some steak into strips for you. But if instead you were to see a delerious little kid with a squirt gun, that should give you pause. Unlimited force is justified only so long as the threat exists. Someone who is not a threat to you, is no longer an aggressor - except to the extent that they owe you for damages. But the rectification of that debt justifies only whatever force is necessary.

[Kevin Freeheart]

Do you qualify "revenge" as any act of force not performed in self-defense during the commission of the initiated force?

I think I sense what the question is hitting at, but I think there might be two unspoken defintions: revenge and self-defense.

I do not consider it revenge to use force after the fact if that force is needed to make the person being harmed whole. A private protection agency using tear gas in the home of an armed robber in the attempt to reclaim stolen goods would not be revenge in my eyes. However, breaking the guys kneecaps the next weekend because he's an asshat and you're angry WOULD be revenge.

IMO You only have the right to take someone's life if they threatened to take the life of yours or your family's.

My basis for the ownership of property is the act of eating (eating, which is a human requirement deprives other people of the ability to eat that thing. This establishes that ownership it natural, needed and ethical. My viewpoint also extends to more "complex" forms of property, but that's the basis of it). When I say "life, liberty and property" I'm not speaking of three unique things, but three aspects of the same thing. With that understanding, I believe in absolute ownership of property and support that through homesteading all non-data things may be owned. I do, very much, consider tresspass of any sort to be an assault on life. I wouldn't go blasting away people for stepping foot on my property, but in the very barest sense, I do believe that someone doing that would be disgusting BUT acting ethically according to the non-aggression principal.

[MacFall]

Do you qualify "revenge" as any act of force not performed in self-defense during the commission of the initiated force?

I think I sense what the question is hitting at, but I think there might be two unspoken defintions: revenge and self-defense.

I do not consider it revenge to use force after the fact if that force is needed to make the person being harmed whole. A private protection agency using tear gas in the home of an armed robber in the attempt to reclaim stolen goods would not be revenge in my eyes. However, breaking the guys kneecaps the next weekend because he's an asshat and you're angry WOULD be revenge.

Ah, I see. I agree.

[BonerJoe]

Pacifists. I hate them.

[MacFall]

I don't hate them, but they do annoy me.

[trollfreezone]

They piss me off, because they don't toe the line.  By letting people abuse them without retribution, they create an environment in which people who would abuse believe they can get away with it.  In that way, they're almost as bad as the abusers.

[hellbilly]

It depends on the seriousness of the force initiated. Take "Road Rage" for instance. Lots of people say they've been so angry over some bullshit on the road that they might have killed the person had they had a gun.. but an hour later they probably (hope so anyway) won't even remember the event. And they aren't likely to shoot the person should they cross paths in traffic again. A little colling off period can save some woe.

But, harm done to a person rightfully creates an opportunity for the person harmed to do some damage themselves. Have ya seen any of those Bronson movies, the "Deathwish" series I believe. Now that sort of scenario is perfectly justified given the violence the victim suffered during the incidents. To go hunt them down for the sole purpose of killing them is noble, not to mention moral.

[trollfreezone]

...that's not passivism, as I understand it.  It's letting people abuse you without responding.

[Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith)]

IMO You only have the right to take someone's life if they threatened to take the life of yours or your family's.

My basis for the ownership of property is the act of eating (eating, which is a human requirement deprives other people of the ability to eat that thing. This establishes that ownership it natural, needed and ethical. My viewpoint also extends to more "complex" forms of property, but that's the basis of it). When I say "life, liberty and property" I'm not speaking of three unique things, but three aspects of the same thing. With that understanding, I believe in absolute ownership of property and support that through homesteading all non-data things may be owned. I do, very much, consider tresspass of any sort to be an assault on life. I wouldn't go blasting away people for stepping foot on my property, but in the very barest sense, I do believe that someone doing that would be disgusting BUT acting ethically according to the non-aggression principal.
[/quote]

That's fair, if you told the guy not to come on your property and he did anyways you'd have to assume something's up.

[Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith)]

Can't I just nail his sister and his girlfriend instead?

Wait, are we talking hypothetically here?

Nevermind.

whatever floats your boat I'd think.