From: Damien Sullivan (phoenix@ugcs.caltech.edu)
Date: Wed Sep 10 2003 - 13:53:28 MDT
On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 01:25:36AM -0700, Samantha Atkins wrote:
> >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
But when the initiators of force are a large segment of society, or the
government, stepping in to stop that can require you taking over the society,
involving a lot of coercion. Even if your coercion is simply taking over the
governmental functions of the overly-coercive government you're overthrowing,
the fact that it's you doing it and not the old, traditional gang may be felt
as new coercion by the population.
Like if someone wanted to stop US force against drug users, they'd have to
step in at a rather deep level. You're not just stopping an act, you're
messing with a whole system. Ditto with stopping slavery in the South. It's
not the same as stopping a single mugging; the scale and interactions are
different.
-xx- Damien X-)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 10 2003 - 14:03:03 MDT