This is something I’ve been thinking about for a while now. I definately don’t like violence, however it has occurred to me that under the non-aggression principle, we have a right to revolt because of government interference and regulation of our property, etc.
So my question to you all is, right now, would a revolution be a just cause?
Okay, so the question remains…what do we do?
Under libertarian principles, do we have a right to go around killing cops (“pre-emtively”)? Some might argue that even if a particular cop’s existence does not threaten one’s life or property directly, even his presence in a vicinity is an implied threat.
For those worried for legal ramifications… if you were playing a computer game like Skyrim, for instance (and you were trying to play it according to libertarian principles), would you consider killing city guards OK, even absent of a specific threat from them? Or would that be a violation of NAP?
Well, technically you never asked that question. You just asked if a revolution would be a just cause.
As for what to do, I think Tom’s on point:
And of course there’s the Stuff we can do thread.
Sorry, I never meant for my response to you to sound like I didn’t get a straight answer in the first place, because you did give me one. My bad.
Based on the theory of proportional force, killing cops would not be justified. I would not support a violent revolution. We need cultural change, people.
I like that idea wayyy more, but how would that come about, specifically? Would we use Mao’s Cultural Revolution as a template (except this time, with no retarded power-hungry ideology in mind)?
Because truthfully I can’t say I particularly like the idea of chucking a bunch of ancient statues of Confucius out a window, lol.
Did you look at any of the links I provided?
Yes. In fact I was just thinking about asking what would be good content for flyers to put up. Where would you say that the best place to post flyers are? I’m not sure that where I live, a local business would be eager to put up anti-state flyers or something like that, but obviously there are more options.
Last time I checked the Cultural Revolution ended in lots of killing and imprisonment.
I appreciate your interest and I believe we need more discussion on this. Could we start different threads for it, though? I’d like to flesh out ideas more and not mix up topics.
Well when you say “cultural change,” I couldn’t help but think how that might be brought about. All of this aside, I’m really just asking how you think that could happen, as in sooner rather than later.
If you’re asking me, go ahead if you’d like to create the thread yourself, I’ll just go into that one when you put it up (if you yourself want to put it up).
Today I’m learning libertarians are free riders. First a guy asks me to translate a sentence from a language I don’t even know, and then you. shakes head.
I’m teasing.
…What?
Nevermind. Thread’s up:
Welcome back!
I don’t think that we have a right to go around preemptively killing cops, with perhaps the one exception being for the cops that have murdered others. But even then I am quite hesitant. One of the key libertarian beliefs regarding law is that the plaintiff must be the victim of the defendant (or have somehow acquired the right to sue on the victim’s behalf). If the cop has not aggressed against you in particular, I’m not so sure that you have the right to kill him or even do any harm to him whatsoever. The one exception being if you are acting on the victim’s behalf (and with the victim’s consent) - but then the question of proportionality kicks in.
Thanks.
What’s the principle/theory of proportionality? Where can I read about it (from libertarian perspective)?
For instance: do I have a right to defend my property with deadly force? A guy stops me on the street and asks for $5 (million) in my wallet. He won’t kill me, unless I don’t give him the money. I happen to know how to kill him. Am I justified in doing it for 5 (million) bucks?
This is a good excerpt by Rothbard from The Ethics of Liberty. But the basic idea is reciprocity: “life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth…” I wrote a little bit about my thoughts on it here. Most people find restitution to be preferable (and if true restitution/restoration/undoing could be done, I think almost all people except for the really sick and twisted would prefer that to retribution), but retributive justice is the basis for restitution. If you beat me up, and whether or not I want restitution, I may not beat you up more than what you did to me, else I would be in the wrong.
Not all libertarians agree on this, but it’s a fairly standard viewpoint.
The way I see it, it all depends upong what the aggressor is doing. If some guy pulls a gun on you, he has certainly threatened you with deadly force. You are within your rights to use deadly force too, as the aggressor is the one who first raised the conflict to that level. But if the guy just grabbed your wallet out of your hands (maybe you were paying at the store), you do not have a right to just shoot him. He has certainly wronged you, but not to the same degree that you would be acting against him. If you just shot him, you would be in the wrong.
Someone might try to pose a scenario where the mugger’s gun isn’t loaded and you don’t know it. But it’s beside the point. The point is that the mugger has raised the level of conflict to deadly force. He has not only threatened your life, but he intends for it to be a credible threat. Anyway, I’m a little tired*, so this post is probably a little out of order, but Rothbard’s chapter is probably far more illuminating (I can’t remember if I agree with everything he says in that chapter, but I certainly agree with the general gist).
*Not that I’m going to go to sleep right now.