Kevin Bjornson wrote:
KB) There is a characteristic of objective reality that embodies the principle of zero aggression as an ideal that might be achieved, but almost certainly will not be achieved by humans. So we are talking about two different things (KB
Indeed! When I and Susan Hogarth and every other Libertarian I know talk about the Zero Aggression Principle, they're talking about personally committing/endorsing literally zero aggression. Not one speck. Zero. Nada. You're apparently talking about something like society achieving an absence of aggression. That's a fine subject to talk about, but if you distort a standard movement label to talk about it, you demotivate people from talking to you about it.
KB) In reality, executives also have discretion, not only in whether or not to file charges, but what those charges are; so in effect, they have powers similar to judges to calibrate according to circumstances. (KB
Again, you are simply not reading what I'm writing. I wrote: "restitution for particular aggressions proven in tort-like proceedings". The example we've been talking about is taxes on gasoline and gasoline engines; there are no "charges to file".
I've established that you after all not an advocate of the Zero Aggression Principle as it is understood in the libertarian movement, so my primary aim here is achieved. The only question now is whether I have the willpower to resist the urge to keep correcting your misunderstandings of what I'm talking about. :-) If I don't respond to your next misunderstanding, it's because I successfully resisted the urge.
