From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Wed Sep 10 2003 - 02:25:36 MDT
On Tuesday 09 September 2003 14:38, Anders Sandberg wrote:
>
> How OK it is to intervene coercively to save another person from
> coercion or violence is in this complex area, but my understanding
> (interpretation?) of the (a?) libertarian position would be that it is
> usually OK, although it does not have to be a moral obligation.
If you and a bunch of other volunteers choose to intervene then that is your
business. Just don't expect the country to bail you out or coerce others to
support your adventure against their will.
>This is
> based on the natural rights perspective. In order to save a human from
> an unjust violation of her right to live it is OK to coerce her
> violators (but avoid unnecessary violence; the case for whether they may
> be killed in the pursuit of human rights is very iffy).
It hampers clarity to cast the intervention in terms of coercion. You are
responding to an initiation of force against someone by generously taking up
their defense against same. Using force to counteract the initiation of
force is justified. However much violence as is needed to stop/counter the
original initiation of force is ok if it is as limited as possible. Of
course, it is another question entirely whether one's evaluation of the
merits of a particular possible intervention is rational or not.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 10 2003 - 02:34:43 MDT