These opinions warrantied for the lifetime of your brain.

Loading Table of Contents...

Tuesday, April 1, 2008

RE: [LPplatform-discuss] Opposition to X vs. absolute abstinence from X

Kevin Bjornson wrote:

BH) "...enforcing a due-process-observing monopoly on retaliatory force" (BH

KB) The US does not have a monopoly of retaliatory force, even within it's territory (KB

I of course mean that the U.S. claims such a formal monopoly on retaliatory force, and not that it has magical power to stop every act of retribution. :-)

KB) I don't know if this counts as a "substantive difference" or a quibble. But I suspect it indicates a fundamental difference in our method if not goal. Two points: is and ought. (KB

Yes, I've detected some hints in your comments that you believe Ms. Rand solved the centuries-old  If you want to debate that, I suggest you submit a rewrite of the Wikipedia article on the Naturalistic Fallacy and then see what happens. :-)  Suffice it to say that I think Rand missed the mark by a wide margin, and that those in need of more ethical certitude than a godless universe gives them should investigate Fred Foldvary's Universal Ethic.

KB) I do applaud your improvement on the usual formulation, "retaliatory" force instead of simply "force". (KB

Only a newbie would define away the right to self-defense. :-)  I'd prefer the applause for my extended formulation in which I include "any force initiation deemed legitimate" in the monopoly.   I agree with Roy Childs contra Rand on the question Does Zero-Aggression Absolutism Imply Anarchism?

KB) Neither should governments necessarily have a monopoly of retaliatory force. Because that would preclude both revolutions and liberations. (KB

The monopoly is not absolutely normative.  A healthy respect for the principle of Rule of Law indeed does not preclude the right of revolution/liberation.