A question about estoppel

[liberty_student]

@Stephen Forde

In the video, the Pacifist Batman is using disproportionate force.

Yes. That’s where the humour comes from. It’s a parody.

[Stephen_Forde]

@Thedesolateone

@Stephen Forde

Defense and retaliation are both non-consensual non-aggressive uses of force.

Retaliation is aggressive.

Aggression is the initiation of force. Besides, how can a person coherently argue against retaliation without falling into contradiction?

[Stephen_Forde]

@Juan

I thought the video was making this point

@Ethics of Liberty

In the first place, it should be clear that the proportionate principle is a maximum, rather than a mandatory, punishment for the criminal. In the libertarian society, there are, as we have said, only two parties to a dispute or action at law: the victim, or plaintiff, and the alleged criminal, or defendant. It is the plaintiff that presses charges in the courts against the wrongdoer. In a libertarian world, there would be no crimes against an ill-defined “society,” and therefore no such person as a “district attorney” who decides on a charge and then presses those charges against an alleged criminal. The proportionality rule tells us how much punishment a plaintiff may exact from a convicted wrongdoer, and no more; it imposes the maximum limit on punishment that may be inflicted before the punisher himself becomes a criminal aggressor

bolding mine.

I am deviating from the traditional Rothbardian position. I gave my justification in the OP. Can you prove me wrong?

[Juan]

Well, I sort of agree with your position. At least I agree with the idea that if A doesn’t think the property of B,C,etc is to be respected, A can’t object to his property being treated equally.

But I imagine that in practice people would make explicit arrangements as to how they want their property and persons protected…and ‘pacifist batman’ would not necessarily be a welcomed guest.

But what I am arguing is that punishment might not be a matter exclusively for a victim to decide.

Why should the opinion of a bystander be relevant to a dispute, assuming the quarreling parties did not ask his opinion ?

Also, I’m not sure what you mean by punishment.