> He has Initiated Force against some people (those who might have > been harmed if he had been a little smarter). Therefore anyone > who was at risk, AND anyone who is a friend of such a person > and is asked to retaliate, may blow the sonofabitch away without > Initiating Force - it is only a Response to an earlier Initiation.
Okay, let's imagine this - on some arbitrary day of year 1, I am driving along in an automobile. The road is strange to me and I have been driving a long way. I take a curve too fast and my car almost leaves the road. But by blind luck and the smallest smidgeon of skill, I manage to regain control of the vehicle. After stopping and conducting an assessement, including changing my underwear, I drive on. Now, you live in a home located on that curve. Now we skip forward 15 years. In a city I am walking down the street - and we encounter each other. You recall my face! I'm the SOB who almost went off the road into your house 15 years ago! Are you then entitled to blow me away because I had negligently endangered your property 15 years ago? Is there some ssort of customary time horizon? Is there some sort of sliding bar of force to consult? Because whipping out a gun and blowing away someone who was a speeder 15 years ago seems sort of extreme to me. > Yes, if all we are allowed is DEFENSE, then no one will EVER be hunted > down and punished. > One second after raping your favorite wife, a perp can walk away and all > you can do is sue him > for monetary damages. > I say screw that, a victim if Initiation of Force ought to be able to > retaliate without being held to > be Initiating Force. The hell with DEFENSE ONLY. If we stick to that, > then CRIME PAYS, > since embezzlers and shoplifters and the like will only have to pay back > WHEN THEY? ARE > CAUGHT, and the times they are NOT caught it's all gravy, no risk of being > hunted down after > the fact, screw that. Wow. My problem with that is that it raatchets everything up to killing people - And what do you do if you find out that you're WRONG? You just shot someone who LOOKED like a guy who almost left the road 15 years ago. WHat if that guys relatives demand your head on a pike to make sure that crime doesn't ever pay, even unintentional crime? -*- I saw a video from a guy who said he wasn't a voluntaryist, because he felt that shooting someone for a minor violation of the ZAP was over reacting. I replied that the option of over reacting has to be available, so some one can select an appropriate reaction to a minor violation. I used the example of someone who stands on your yard trying to get a better view of a parade. He is tresspassing, but shooting him seems way, way over reacting. I have to say that shouldd find ourselves in Libertopia, if you act like your posts, I'm going to move away from you and keep going until I am out of rifle shot. You seem a touch eager to find a reason to open fire and a touch too trusting of your ability to divine who does and doesn't need shooting. For instance, I think shooting the would-be times square bomber would be a touch extreme and wasteful. I think somewhere there is a ditch going undug that is calling that guy's name. How we work out such reparations is a whole other kettle of fish. Jay ~Meow!~
