Replying to Avatar SpontaneousOrder

No I’m not. But if you are interested in those kind auf thoughts, look at Mises.org and people like Rothbard and Hoppe
70
anonymous 8mo ago

Okay, but where did you read/interpret the 'pro-active' conponent from?

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Avatar
SpontaneousOrder 8mo ago

“If you claim you're only allowed to fight back in kind, sure, maybe that is a valid argument. I am not sure whether that is defensible for all rights. In some cases, your attacker might be at an inherent advantage. That would be a good reason to fight back in whichever way is to your benefit.”

Maybe I did misinterpret, but it sounded to me, that only self defense ist not sufficient for you.

70
anonymous 8mo ago

No, what I meant is that: if one violates your privacy, and you are only ever to retaliate by violating their privacy, then your attacker will by definition always be at an advantage, and he will be able to protect himself against your attempts at defense.