Watch this.
Clayton -
It’s funny that Lao says that you reach with that one. I agree that it is wrong- for the same reason that he was wrong claiming that receiving tuition subsidy is advocating tax extortion. You can exclude classes of people from its application. You can flout the rules circumstantially. There is plenty of gap. To take it to its logical conclusion, every transgression can be penalized by death.
Yes I have been reading back and I do think I was reaching with it.
I think im much clearer now.Any moral theory has to be universal. The non-aggression axiom is unversal - don’t use force on others to be granted the same civility. If I punch you you should be allowed punch me back. If I punch you and prevent you from punching me back im being immoral. Immoral people always create universal rules and then exempt themselves. A thief would want to have a gun in his hand but he doesnt want the victim to have one. A thief doesnt want you to have property rights but wants to have them himself. He doesn’t want you to have your car he wants it.
If a criminal breaks in to a home and threatens the occupants life inside. He is creating a universal rule of denial of life by the act of threatening another humans life. He is being immoral because he wants the occupants to die but not himself because he is the one pointing the gun. He is making the killing or threat of another humans life a preferable behaviour. What then, if the occupants get a hold of the gun from him. Im wondering is it acceptable then for the occupants to kill him or at least threaten his life?
This is not to say that anyone who transgresses against another can be penalized by death. The same thing applies I think, that’s not to say that when a person steals your hat you can steal his life because he didnt steal or threaten your life.