From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Wed Sep 10 2003 - 18:09:19 MDT
On Wednesday 10 September 2003 12:53, Damien Sullivan wrote:
> 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.
In such cases I think it is irrational to expend that much energy and
resources unless the population of said country is sufficiently ready to live
in a more free state. This readiness cannot be acheived by force. Without
this readiness the saying about teaching a pig to sing seems appropriate. It
will be terribly frustrating and only annoy the pig.
>
> Like if someone wanted to stop US force against drug users, they'd have to
> step in at a rather deep level.
Actually, massive public disobedience to the drug laws along with juries
fairly consistently refusing to hand down guilty verdicts should do the
trick. That is largely what got us past the first Prohibition.
>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.
>
Different, yes. But this doesn't mean the fundamental principles are not the
same.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 10 2003 - 18:16:19 MDT