What exactly is "initiation of force"?

[Black Bloke]

I feel like there's a question in there, but I can't really divine a specific one.  The idea of proportionality is a traditional ethical principle, not limited to libertarian thinkers or libertarianism.  When a proper proportion is to be determined we can get these results: 1) either it is proportionate (in that case we are ok), or 2) it is not proportionate because it is not enough, or 3) it is not proportionate because it is too much.  I think that cases of disproportionate dealings of justice are going to be inevitable, at least at the outset of a restitution based system, but I also believe that proper proportions do exist and can be achieved.

I also think that this is an inescapable problem of humanity.  Because of the variety in humanity what may be restitution in one case may not be restitution in another.  Perhaps if the human race were composed of all identical robots, this problem of "nebulousness" or the lack of "clean, black and white boundaries" wouldn't exist.  But (fortunately) the human race is what it is, and the variety of property is what it is, so I deny that the model of human interaction must be any more defined than the fuzzy spheres of authority.  I don't see the need for a "must" to exist here.  Rather than a one size fits all, pre-determined, procrustean bed-like Tablet of Justice™ being necessary, I submit that an individual investigation must be launched for every individual.  Proportionality is to be determined by the situations.

[srqrebel]

Unfortunately, I don't have a lot of time to stay caught up on the forum these days, let alone post in-depth responses... but this valid observation of yours begs me to clarify a point:

...Rather than a one size fits all, pre-determined, procrustean bed-like Tablet of Justice™ being necessary, I submit that an individual investigation must be launched for every individual.  Proportionality is to be determined by the situations.

I am certainly not suggesting a "one size fits all, pre-determined, procrustean bed-like Tablet of Justice™" -- in fact, that is a large part of what is wrong with what currently passes for "government".

What I seek to establish, is a scientifically accurate formula (or formulas) that can be applied in all cases. This may well seem pie-in-the-sky, but only because mankind has hardly made any attempt, or given any serious thought to, approaching the issue of human interaction from a scientific perspective. Instead, while the application of the scientific method causes material technology to flourish, human interaction still languishes in the dark ages, founded upon the flat earth dogma of one-size-fits-all morals and laws.

What passes for "government" today is analogous to a world where all houses are built from mud, because that is the only material known to man as useful for construction. What I am proposing is analogous to determining what properties are necessary for a given material to qualify as useful for construction, thereby maximizing the options available, through the application of a scientific formula rather than subjective dogma.

Just as the scientific formula in the above analogy has to harmonize with the laws of physical nature to be valid, so does any scientific formula for positive human interaction need to harmonize with the laws of human nature to be valid. Thus, the only limitations of a valid scientific formula are the immutable laws of nature.

[srqrebel]

Wow, BB... I just now read your signature line (the quote by Benjamin Tucker).

That is in fact a very accurate and concise expression of where I stand right now with regard to self-defense, and what constitutes the only valid use of force in human interaction... amen, bro!

+1 for bringing this quote to my attention

[David]

What I seek to establish, is a scientifically accurate formula (or formulas) that can be applied in all cases. This may well seem pie-in-the-sky, but only because mankind has hardly made any attempt, or given any serious thought to, approaching the issue of human interaction from a scientific perspective. Instead, while the application of the scientific method causes material technology to flourish, human interaction still languishes in the dark ages, founded upon the flat earth dogma of one-size-fits-all morals and laws.

They have approached the problem in a scientific manner.  The problem is there is no concensous or even anything close to it in regards to the various answers. 
I think part of the problem lies in the dynamics of relationships.  If a buddy of mine lightly punched me on my shoulder, I would likely assume he was just horseplaying.  If a total stranger did the exact same thing, I would be pissed.  What is acceptable encroachment to some is absolutely unacceptable to others. 
My favorite philosopher came to the conclusion that the only morally binding law or fomula that can rightfully be enforced is those that come as close to reaching a concensous as possible.  He called them the Two Laws. 
1. Do all you have agreed to do.
2. Do not encroach on other persons or their property.
He notes that every major religion teaches these concepts to some degree or other.  The failure to follow the two laws is the cause of almost all conflict. 

[MaineShark]

Speaking of quotes...

Gandhi on self-defense...

I have been repeating over and over again that he who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honor by non-violently facing death may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden. He has no business to be the head of a family. He must either hide himself, or must rest content to live for ever in helplessness and be prepared to crawl like a worm at the bidding of a bully.

Gandhi actually had many good thoughts on self-defense.  While I sometimes disagree with his conclusions, I have always respected his lack of desire to impose his will on others, even non-violently.  I wish we had many more like him - the world would be a much better place.

Joe

[ReverendRyan]

Gandhi actually had many good thoughts on self-defense.  While I sometimes disagree with his conclusions, I have always respected his lack of desire to impose his will on others, even non-violently.

Unless they're black people, of course, as evidenced in his writings from South Africa.

Clause 200 makes provision for registration of persons belonging to uncivilized races (meaning the local Africans), resident and employed within the Borough. One can understand the necessity of registration of Kaffirs who will not work, but why should registration be required for indentured Indians who have become free, and for their descendants about whom the general complaint is that they work too much?

Indian Opinion March 18 1905

In this instance of the fire-arms, the Asiatic has been most improperly bracketed with the natives. The British Indian does not need any such restrictions as are imposed by the Bill on the natives regarding the carrying of fire-arms. The prominent race can remain so by preventing the native from arming himself.

Indian Opinion March 25 1905

We believe also that the white race of South Africa should be the predominating race.

Indian Opinion September 24 1903

Not saying, he didn't do good things, but no hero-worship, thanks.

[MaineShark]

Not saying, he didn't do good things, but no hero-worship, thanks.

No hero-worship.  He certainly had failings.  He was very human which, I suppose, is how he ended up being the leader that he was.  He wasn't "above" those around him.

It's very interesting how his message has been twisted over the years.  His racial opinions ceased to be broadcast, and his thoughts on peace and violence and the appropriate places for various types of resistance ended up condensed down to an absolutist message of complete intolerance for self-defense, which certainly wasn't his actual opinion.

Joe

[Black Bloke]

Wow, BB... I just now read your signature line (the quote by Benjamin Tucker).

That is in fact a very accurate and concise expression of where I stand right now with regard to self-defense, and what constitutes the only valid use of force in human interaction... amen, bro!

+1 for bringing this quote to my attention

Thanks ;-)

It's essentially where I am as well.  Referring back to the short Long piece (pun intended), when I started on my philosophical journey on the road of libertarianism I was fully supportive of not only the use of defensive force but also the use of retaliatory force as well.  As I was still a believer in the state in those days, it was very easy for me to fall into the trap of supporting shock and awe tactics, and blitzkrieg maneuvers against "enemies".  The deaths of the whole rest of the world's population wouldn't have bothered me if it saved American lives.

Eventually I came around to an appreciation of non-violence, and became completely disgusted with what I once was.  Now, I'm a borderline pacifist.  The Tucker quotes sums up exactly what I've felt since.  It's a great relief :-)

Another quote (my other choice for signature) also sums up where I am in regards to the state, and so many other institutions:

"Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break into pieces."—Étienne de la Boétie, Discourse of Voluntary Servitude

[srqrebel]

Yup -- that quote sums up my approach to dealing with the Prevailing Crime Syndicate aka "government".

There is another quote by Étienne de la Boétie, taken from the same essay, which hits the nail on the head: "Where has he acquired enough eyes to spy upon you, if you do not provide them yourselves? How can he have so many arms to beat you with, if he does not borrow them from you? The feet that trample down your cities, where does he get them if they are not your own?"

Of course, at face value that appears to be a rather collectivist statement; yet it eloquently highlights a key flaw of collectivism in practice, namely that collectivism inexorably leads to tyranny, no matter how it is implemented. This is because collectivism neutralizes responsibility, by directly contradicting the nature of humanity: The individual, not some imaginary collective, is the functioning unit of the species. Only the individual is capable of exercising responsibility.

Thus, la Boétie's observation gently but firmly points toward the one viable option: Self-responsibility, which in turn neutralizes collectivism. It is the only approach that harmonizes with your nature as an independently functioning rational being. If you want to be a free person, it is entirely up to you to take the necessary steps to secure that freedom, however difficult that may be.

The more one follows that train of thought, the more empowered one becomes!

[srqrebel]

By the way, Black Bloke -- have you considered joining the growing number of free marketeers migrating to New Hampshire, (especially the Keene area)?

...or perhaps you are already here


While the responsibility for one's freedom and personal security rests entirely within oneself, there is tremendous synergy as well as tangible benefits to being around likeminded thinkers in person. It cannot even be sufficiently described in words... you have to experience it for yourself. I would go so far as to say that my move to Keene from Florida last year was one of the most self-responsible things I have ever done!

[Black Bloke]

:-)

Sorry for the delay this week, I've been occupied at home.  I tell myself that I'll be up in NH by about 2015, but I can't predict the future.  I think I saw you at Liberty Forum this past winter, but I can't be sure.  Were you sitting at the table for the Free Town Project?

[srqrebel]

:-)

Sorry for the delay this week, I've been occupied at home.  I tell myself that I'll be up in NH by about 2015, but I can't predict the future.  I think I saw you at Liberty Forum this past winter, but I can't be sure.  Were you sitting at the table for the Free Town Project?

No, that wasn't me... I was only there for a short time the night Sununu spoke, to help out with what was dubbed 'the Sununu protest'

I plan on attending PorcFest, though... hope to see you there!

[David]

I increasinly turn myself away from the concept of any perfect or hard and fast form of principles.  I find myself thinking in terms of how to reduce conflict, without trying to impose obligations on others. 
For example, while I oppose intelectual property 'rights', I don't frequently violate them because I don't want the conflict, and of course I believe it is fraud to claim someone elses work as my own.  And in some cases, I really respect the work of someone else, and don't want to disrespect them. 
The idea of reducing conflict is somewhere, somehow, in every major religion in existence.  (it is also the single most violated theme in every major religion, but that doesn't change the fact that it is there.)  I think humans survive as a species, despite the enourmous violence that has occured throughout history, because in everyday life, most want only to be free of conflict.  Unfortunately that leads them to sometimes make shortcuts, such as paying off aggressors, and that leads to gov't.  (For those of you that believe gov't is a noble institution designed only to protect our rights, and that it has simply gone astray, you have not read any history of Europe lately.  The origen of gov't isn't much different than that of the crips, bloods, or hamas in palestine.)

[srqrebel]

I increasinly turn myself away from the concept of any perfect or hard and fast form of principles.  I find myself thinking in terms of how to reduce conflict, without trying to impose obligations on others.

Imposing obligations on others creates conflict.

Without going into detail, that is simply a fact of human nature. Any scientifically accurate approach to human interaction has to take that into consideration.

Please do not assume that having a hard and fast, scientifically accurate set of principles with which to approach human interaction, would rely on, or even promote, conduct that conflicts with human nature. That would be self-contradictory at best.

It certainly is easy to fall into the trap of making that assumption, because every past attempt to establish a viable formula for human interaction has made the fatal error of trying to dictate and enforce morals upon others. That is exactly what I am trying to move beyond.

Having clearly defined standards of human interaction, which are fully compatible with human nature, places one at a distinct advantage -- regardless of the standards, or lack of standards, that others choose to apply. Human nature provides us with the buttons and levers that we can operate to get what we want; the problem is, humans do not come with instruction manuals.

It is that instruction manual for the individual -- the functioning unit of the species -- that I seek to create, personally benefit from, and present to others to benefit likewise from.

[srqrebel]

In other words, any scientifically accurate formula for human interaction, must be applicable at the individual level -- regardless of what standards others apply. This is because the functioning unit of the Human species is not a "collective", but the individual.

That does not preclude such a formula from being presented to others for their own application (or rejection). Human nature by itself dictates that if such a formula, once presented, empowers the individual, it will come into widespread use on its own. If it does not empower the individual, it will be widely rejected, and fall by the wayside.