"Corwyn J. Alambar" wrote:
> *take sa deep breath* Okay - let's consider where this is going.
> There is no way to ask this question without it being loaded, but
> let's put it as bluntly as possible: When IS it okay to engage in
> physical violence against another person based upon real, perceived,
> or imagined differences? I'm not talking about religious tracts and
> pseudo-scientific literature "proving" the inferiority of members of
> one group or another - I am asking specfically about physical violence.
>
It is never ok to initiate physical force <period>.
> THe recent questions about libertarianism and such have given me an
> insight (albeit still rather flawed) into the values many people here
> hold. Whil eI don't always agree withthem, I admire the core goals and
> values highly. Then something like this comes up, and I wonder how
> reactionary and reaction-based people become over time. Whenever a
> prosecution based on "hate crimes" comes up, somehow it is suddenly
> an unfair application of the "morals of the state" to the private
> realm, with no equal examination to what we DO permit to happen without
> this pre-determined qualifying factor.
If the state doesn't exist to uphold individual rights, including the
right to be free from initiation of physical force, then the state has
no business existing at all. It has nothing to do with "hate crimes" per
se as nasty as hating someone or some group for simply being different
is.
- s.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:39:28 MDT