--- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, "Gary F. York" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Zack Bass wrote: > > The question I posed involved this scenario: > > > > "I say that it would be Wrong for someone to Punish Kevin for that > > act. As I understand it, you would agree, because any Punishment > > after the fact cannot be considered Defensive." > > > > SO: > > ONCE AGAIN: > > Do you agree or do you not agree that it would be Immoral to punish > > Kevin, after the fact, for what he just did? > > > What on earth are you going on about? I already said I did not condone > 'punishment' or 'retaliation'. I'm about restitution and restraint. >
Then we are in agreement. Kevin may Punish transgressions against him and it would be Morally Wrong for anyone to Punish him for his standing up for himself in that manner. > > Kevin, were I (or my protection agency) in charge of him, will be > restrained > Oh wait - THAT IS PUNISHMENT! > > -- at least until the community can decide how much (if any) > of Kevin's remaining assets should go to compensate Jane's heirs. > The answer is NONE, since **SHE** is the one who violated the Agreement. I notice that no one was there when KEVIN wanted Restitution. > > The balance of his assets, if any, will likely go toward Kevin's continued > upkeep and restraint. Kevin may access the balance of his assets, while > in restraint, and may live as comfortably and luxuriously as he can > afford and for as long as he can afford it. > Life Sentence. Lovely. THAT IS PUNISHMENT, not RESTITUTION! How about if Kevin used Force to "RESTRAIN" Jane for the rest of her life? Oh wait, that's what you're Punishing him for NOW!
