I'm very much using reason. Just because you don't understand it doesn'tean it doesn't make sense. Like I said earlier, you're just wrong on this.
Discussion
Then go play batman, and rage against the police when they arrest you.
Why would they arrest me? To enact revenge on behalf of the state? Or what?
That's quite a reversal. I think you ought to re-read our discussion.
Alright man. I'm trying to understand your reasoning here because it doesn't hold water to me the way I understand it right now, maybe I'm missing something. You're not really explaining your premises here, just declaring that mine are wrong. I'd love it if you'd explain it to me so I can understand it, maybe you're right and I'll learn something.
Right now, your reasoning appears to be:
- it is always wrong to act aggressively or violently towards others except to neutralize a present threat,
- but you should get punished for acting violently or aggressively towards others,
- but not by any individual, but by a court, but not a court that's part of a state.
- And, you shouldn't be punished, because revenge is always wrong, even when the state does it.
Do I have that right?
That's awfully complex. My reasoning is that deliberately harming someone is a crime. Determining if its deliberate, and what should be done about it, is up to a court. This is entirely normal. This is how it works in real life.
Deliberately harming someone isn't always a crime though. When the state does it, for example, it isn't. You're saying that that also should be, but also that this guy deserves retaliation from a court. That's what makes no sense to me. It seems to me you're avoiding saying "only the state has the right to retaliation" because you see the error in that.
No one has a right to retaliation.