Hi, Brian, I wrote:
>Force was initiated by the murderer, but since the death penalty
>is not an immediate and direct response to the murderer's force,
>it does not qualify as defensive counterforce. Any harm inflicted
>after the fact is a *separate* application of force, and hence an
>initiation. Or is there some flaw in my reasoning here?
You respond:
> The flaw lies in the fact that I just re-read "the extropian
> Principals v2.6, and there is no non-aggression principal.
> "have some fire Strawman"
Now you're really burning me up. :-)
You said:
>> As citizens of a government we are subject to legal definitions.
I said:
>I disagree. Most of us haven't chosen to be "citizens" in the
>first place, we are simply claimed as such by the nearest
>gangsters calling themselves "government". "Subject to legal
>definitions" is somewhat ambiguous, but if you mean we're somehow
>("morally" or otherwise) bound to define things the way the
>powers-that-be tell us to, I'd like to know why.
You said:
> You don't have to agree on the definition, but if you violate it,
> you will be punished.
If that's all you meant, I agree - at least an attempt will (in principle) be made to find and punish the violater. That's the reality. I thought you were invoking some obligation to agree with the "authorities'" definitions.
> In a world where private agreements handle
> these matters you can be assured my contract will call for the
> death of anyone who murders me.
You made another attempt to differentiate punishment from revenge:
> Punishment requires being convicted of a crime.
"Convicted of a crime" is just a way of saying "held responsible for an unapproved act". Of course, in taking ordinary revenge on you I show that I hold you responsible for a misdeed. I can call it "punishment" if I want, but it doesn't change the nature of what I'm doing.
> I argue it is fair because it is the only thing a murderer has of
> equivalent value to what he/she took.
> If an individual does it it is revenge.
Peace and carrots,
Dick