Well ultimately you can define words however you want. But that doesn’t mean anyone else is going to go along with them.
Commonly used definitions are what allow people to communicate effectively. Dictionaries provide a common resource for people to keep their definitions straight. Kind of like a standard set of weights and measures.
Harm noun \ˈhärm\
1**:** physical or mental damage : injury
Examples:
- They threatened him with bodily harm.
- The scandal has done irreparable harm to his reputation.
- She’ll do anything to protect her children from harm.
- They have suffered serious physical harm.
- These new regulations could cause lasting harm to small businesses.
Notice…
#2: one does not own his reputation or have a “right” to it.
#5: businesses do not own customers or potential revenue
Again, you can use whatever definitions you want. You can claim “harm” requires “intent” if you want. So if I was just meaning to clean the gun and accidentally shot you in the face, I didn’t “harm” you. You were rushed to the hospital “unharmed”. But that doesn’t mean anyone else is going to abide by that definition.
It is for this reason I am inclined to utilize the most precise terms according to their most commonly and widely defined meanings, giving particular attention to the most common reference point (i.e. dictionaries). But you can do whatever you want.
Again, I disagree. Again, Alice has already demonstrated that physical force is okay with her. She has in a sense permitted the use of force in her regard. She has no “right” to go back and claim “rights” were violated, as that would be inconsistent. The doctrine of estoppel “estops” or prevents you from asserting a position in a legal proceeding that is inconsistent with something you had done previously.
So to claim that you “violated Alice’s rights” is incorrect in my view.
But here again, you can pretend “violating” “rights” “damage” and any of those other words mean whatever you want them to, so I’m not completely sure there is a point in arguing.
No it isn’t.
Various forms/applications of the estoppel doctrine can be found as far back as the 16th century (at least). There may very well be earlier instances I don’t know about. I haven’t really looked into it.
Because again, you have to be consistent.
The libertarian approach is a very symmetrical one: the non-aggression principle does not rule out force, but only the initiation of force. In other words, you are permitted to use force only in response to some else’s use of force. If they do not use force you may not use force yourself. There is a symmetry here: force for force, but no force if no force was used. In law school I learned about the concept of estoppel, which is a legal doctrine that estops or prevents you from asserting a position in a legal proceeding that is inconsistent with something you had done previously. You have to be consistent.
I was at this time fascinated with Hoppe’s argumentation ethics, which is probably why it struck me that the basic reasoning of legal estoppel could be used to explain or justify the libertarian approach to symmetry in force: The reason you are permitted to use force against someone who himself initiated force is that he has already in a sense admitted that he thinks force is permissible, by his act of aggression. Therefore if he were to complain if the victim or the victim’s agents were to try to use defensive or even retaliatory force against him, he would be holding inconsistent positions: His pro-force view that is implicit and inherent in his act of aggression and his anti-force view implicit in his objection to being punished. Using language borrowed from the law, we might say he should be “estopped” from complaining if a victim were to use force to defend himself from the aggressor or even to punish or retaliate against the aggressor. I tried to work this into a theory of libertarian rights, relying heavily on insights from Hoppe’s argumentation ethics and from his social theory in general.
“Allowed”?