Replying to anonymous

"If you use violence to achieve another human right." Sure, but against the violator who already decided to violate your rights first.

You claim the only legitimate use is in self-defense. If you are defending yourself against a violator of your rights, it is self-defense. 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.
Avatar
SpontaneousOrder 9mo ago

If you choose to proactively defend your rights and use force, you must be extremely careful. Because by doing so, you’re almost always risking becoming the aggressor yourself—violating someone else’s negative rights.

So you’d have to be absolutely certain that you can later prove, beyond doubt, that it was a legitimate act of self-defense. And that’s objectively very hard to do.

If you can’t prove it, then you’re not the victim—you are the aggressor, and you’d be fully responsible for the harm caused.

But I guess this is no difference to today. Except for the government for example, who is allowed and breaks negative rights daily

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

70
anonymous 9mo ago

Your statement is fair in that, if unjustified, you're no longer defending. I was not speaking of pro-active defense. I assume you know and wanted to make a separate point?

Avatar
SpontaneousOrder 9mo ago

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 9mo ago

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

Avatar
SpontaneousOrder 9mo 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 9mo 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.