---Max M <maxm@maxmcorp.dk> wrote:
>
> From: Terry Donaghe <tdonaghe@yahoo.com>
>
>
> >"I do not advocate the initiation of force to promote social or
> >political goals."
>
>
> >Comment?
>
>
> It sounds about as practical as comunism!
>
> What about preemptive strikes? I would hate to wait until I got hit
by a
> mugger to react. Or how about hostile countries running the arms
race with
> ill intent? Do we wait until the bombs are dropping?
>
The statement talks about the *initiation* of force. Would you preemptively strike someone who hasn't intiatied force? If so, under what circumstances? This doesn't imply a Tit for Tat retaliation. It simply says that those who agree with the statement will not Initiate force. Threats could be seen as an initiation of force. Moving troops to neighboring borders could been seen as an initiation of force.
> I can think of so many exceptions to this rule that it is hard to take
> seriously.
>
It depends on your definition of force. If I'm a mugger and I hold a
gun on you, I have already initiated violence or force. Believers in
this statement could justify their shooting of muggers, attempted
car-jackers, rapists, etc.
Believers in the statement would never issue threats to an entity that hasn't harmed them. We would never mug anyone, attempt to rape anyone, etc. etc.
Please identify circumstances in which it is ok to INITIATE force.
> It is a good ideal though, and one that I think many of us live by
whenever
> we can.
>
>
#------------------------------------------------------------------------
==
Terry Donaghe: terry@donaghe.com
Individual, Anarcho-Capitalist, Environmentalist, Transhumanist, Mensan
My Homepage: <http://www.donaghe.com/terry.htm>
Visit The Millennium Bookshelf: <http://www.donaghe.com/mbookshelf.htm> Prepare yourself for the next age of mankind!