What exactly is "initiation of force"?

[srqrebel]

Purpose of this thread:

I would very much like to hear your personal interpretation of the term "initiation of force" (from each of you).  What constitutes the initiation of force, and what acts of force are excluded?

Feel free to post your answer without reading the remainder of this post, if you wish

-----------

What led to this question:

A while back, I posted that I had come to view even force used in self-defense as a violation of the sovereignty of the individual -- after all, the sovereignty of a volitional being is inherent and inalienable.  Ten days later, I posted that I may have made a wrong turn, and done so publicly on the forum.

I had originally reached the conclusion that since force used against another violates the sovereignty of the individual, that must remain the case even when that force is used strictly in self-defense, no matter who initiated it.

It occurred to me afterward that if force used in self-defense is a violation of our equal rights as sovereign individuals, those who engage in it must be held accountable in the same (peaceable) way we would hold any other violent criminal accountable: Ostracism.  Yet, the thought of treating as violent criminals those who merely act in their own defense caused me considerable cognitive dissonance, which tipped me off that my newly adopted position may very well be flawed.

Yet I also could not justify forcibly imposing one's own values upon others, no matter how objectively "correct" those values may be.  To do so would be to go right back to accepting the faulty AMOG paradigm, where might determines right under the faulty premise that "right justifies might".

It took over a month of incubation, but I woke up one day last week stunned by the answer -- or rather, by how suddenly obvious and black-and-white the answer was.  I then realized that at the core of my dilemma was a longstanding misinterpretation of the seemingly simple term "initiation of force".

I now believe that this misinterpretation is very widespread among libertarian types, and is a major obstacle to making the actual paradigm shift.  While virtually all libertarian types sincerely desire freedom, most appear to be operating squarely within the paradigm of the AMOG, yet unwittingly count themselves among those who have made the shift simply because they operate outside the box of the mainstream.

I will post my own insights once there has been sufficient response to develop a feel for the general interpretation of that term by the freedom community -- until then, I do not want to influence the responses.

[Kat Kanning]

I could demonstrate next time I see you   


(Yes, Menno, this is a joke.)

[KBCraig]

It's an interesting question. There are many situations in which the first person to actually use force, is not the one who initiated force -- self defense in response to a threat is a good example.

I have a running argument with a local acquaintance over whether or not taxes are collected at the point of a gun. He insists they're not, because of the many steps between the tax levy, and guns being drawn. I insist that so long as government guns are present, they're part of the equation. He scoffs at my simple test: take no enforcement action, send no armed government agents, and see if all the people who "voluntarily" pay taxes would continue to do so. Those who stop paying are those who were paying at gunpoint, rather than voluntarily.

[John Galt]

For me, the initiation of force happens whenever any other person physically aggresses/forces any other person against their voluntary, full-disclosure, freely-given consent.  Any attempt, no matter how successful, to commit fraud of any type or kind against one or more other people, is an initiation of aggressive force/fraud.

Currently we can evaluate ANY activity by any entity with respect to whether that product or service is ultimately provided at threat of gunpoint.  Unfortunately, most are.  The initiation begins immediately when any unjust liability is erroneously and criminally applied to an unwilling victim.  All those involved in the process are equally at fault and guilty.

In law, we recognize that even if only one person in a group of four pulls the trigger the other three are usually guilty of some part of the contruction of the crime action.  This is the same way with the robbery of taxation.  Even those who collect the benefit of the robbery of taxation should have to pay a heavy price for their part in the crime.

Hope this helps and I'll be interested to hear your ideas.

[srqrebel]

For me, the initiation of force happens whenever any other person physically aggresses/forces any other person against their voluntary, full-disclosure, freely-given consent...

Please clarify your position:

If I am deliberately using force to cause you harm, and you use force against me in order to stop that action, you are nevertheless forcing me against my voluntary, full-disclosure, freely-given consent.  Does your action then constitute the initiation of force?

[John Galt]

For me, the initiation of force happens whenever any other person physically aggresses/forces any other person against their voluntary, full-disclosure, freely-given consent...

Please clarify your position:

If I am deliberately using force to cause you harm, and you use force against me in order to stop that action, you are nevertheless forcing me against my voluntary, full-disclosure, freely-given consent.  Does your action then constitute the initiation of force?

Are you being funny here?

You just stated that you are initiating force against me to cause me harm.  You are the initiator.  With just two actors there can be only one initiator.  So that is you.  By initiating you are just begging for the self defense force of repelling and destruction.

[d_goddard]

I am going to come to your house when you're not there, and take all your stuff.

I'll be sure to also steal your identity -- any credit cards or bank accounts -- in the process. I'll enjoy running up debts you'll never repay in this lifetime, and you'll spend a decade sorting it out with the credit agencies.

Maybe I'll commit some hard crimes as well, and plant evidence that you did it. Maybe I'll write death threats to the president on paper with your prints and with your return address. Maybe I'll also spoof your IP address, and make posts all over the web referencing the Browns, and specific plans to kill cops. You're a well-known radical; they'd have to take those threats seriously.
All I did was send a simple letter and type a few keys on a keyboard, man.

See? No physical violence initiated on you at any point.

I don't mind one whit that you and all your friends will "ostracize" me. I'll still have my house, family, and job, and will almost certainly do just fine with my political efforts, to boot.


Do you still believe only physical force violates the ZAP?

[srqrebel]

I am going to come to your house when you're not there, and take all your stuff.

I'll be sure to also steal your identity -- any credit cards or bank accounts -- in the process. I'll enjoy running up debts you'll never repay in this lifetime, and you'll spend a decade sorting it out with the credit agencies.

Maybe I'll commit some hard crimes as well, and plant evidence that you did it. Maybe I'll write death threats to the president on paper with your prints and with your return address. Maybe I'll also spoof your IP address, and make posts all over the web referencing the Browns, and specific plans to kill cops. You're a well-known radical; they'd have to take those threats seriously.
All I did was send a simple letter and type a few keys on a keyboard, man.

See? No physical violence initiated on you at any point.

I don't mind one whit that you and all your friends will "ostracize" me. I'll still have my house, family, and job, and will almost certainly do just fine with my political efforts, to boot.


Do you still believe only physical force violates the ZAP?

Huh??

I am certain that I never said 'only physical force violates the ZAP'.

I am simply asking for individual definitions of precisely what constitutes the initiation of force.  Perhaps I should rephrase the question: When does the use of force constitute initiation, and when does it not?  I would love to hear your input on this, Denis

[srqrebel]

For me, the initiation of force happens whenever any other person physically aggresses/forces any other person against their voluntary, full-disclosure, freely-given consent...

Please clarify your position:

If I am deliberately using force to cause you harm, and you use force against me in order to stop that action, you are nevertheless forcing me against my voluntary, full-disclosure, freely-given consent.  Does your action then constitute the initiation of force?

Are you being funny here?

You just stated that you are initiating force against me to cause me harm.  You are the initiator.  With just two actors there can be only one initiator.  So that is you.  By initiating you are just begging for the self defense force of repelling and destruction.

No, I wasn't trying to be funny at all.  I was just trying to get you to be more specific, without influencing the outcome.

I loosely interpret your response as meaning, "If I use force against you when you have done me no wrong, I am initiating it.  Force used to stop me does not constitute the initiation of force".

Is this what you meant?

[John Galt]

I am going to come to your house when you're not there, and take all your stuff.

I'll be sure to also steal your identity -- any credit cards or bank accounts -- in the process. I'll enjoy running up debts you'll never repay in this lifetime, and you'll spend a decade sorting it out with the credit agencies.

Maybe I'll commit some hard crimes as well, and plant evidence that you did it. Maybe I'll write death threats to the president on paper with your prints and with your return address. Maybe I'll also spoof your IP address, and make posts all over the web referencing the Browns, and specific plans to kill cops. You're a well-known radical; they'd have to take those threats seriously.
All I did was send a simple letter and type a few keys on a keyboard, man.

See? No physical violence initiated on you at any point.

I don't mind one whit that you and all your friends will "ostracize" me. I'll still have my house, family, and job, and will almost certainly do just fine with my political efforts, to boot.


Do you still believe only physical force violates the ZAP?

I don't believe anyone posting here said that.

Actually what you're describing is theft which is a form of force/fraud and, as such, falls under the scope of the initiation of aggression/force/fraud.

As per a part of my earlier post:

"Any attempt, no matter how successful, to commit fraud of any type or kind against one or more other people, is an initiation of aggressive force/fraud."

[Lex]

The problem with finding a rational or absolute answer to this question is that when it comes to violence people are generally not rational. Even if you act rationally in a violent situation you cannot expect the other person to do so, because after all if we were all rational we would rarely if ever resort to violence since economically speaking it's simply too expensive.

So that when a violent situation arises you have to presume that one or both people are irrational. From a basic survival perspective I think it is irrational to be rational in an irrational situation. If there is a fist headed towards your face at a high rate of speed and there is no rational explanation for this action it is still advisable to get out of the way. You could do the rational thing and stand your ground under the belief that the other person is being irrational and you should not be influenced by them. But the price of having a broken nose and stubbornly remain in your spot may be higher than the price of compromising your principles and allowing yourself to be influenced by the actions of an irrational person.

So, if it is a given that there are irrational people in the world and that we cannot avoid being influenced by them then whatever strategy we develop to deal with reality would also have to be flexible and able to compromise. At least for the sake of your own survival.

In my above analogy some people here would probably stand their ground no matter the consequences (Russell, etc) while others would get out of the way. I'm not sure what personal or philosophical or maybe even genetic quality dictates our reaction to these situations but I don't think it can be rationally explained. Maybe you have to be a little suicidal? I don't know.

So, anyways, back on subject. I think the best way to look at 'force' is as a sum instead of each individual action.

If someone breaks into your house, you shoot and kill them. A family member comes by later and avenges the death. Now you are dead. The sum of this interaction is pretty crappy. Am I suggesting that you should not shoot someone having broken into your home and put you and your family in harms way? Not really, but that's kindof the problem with an absolutist or totally rational response to violence. As the saying goes, "Violence begets more violence."

What I am getting at is pretty much common sense: You should never use violence unless you can with certainty determine that if you do not use violence you are guaranteed to die.

Since violence begets more violence you want to do everything in your power to be the break in the cycle. Because in the long run you don't lose while if you used violence then you would likely lose soon.

I dono if what I said answers the question posted by srqrebel but I think it's related.

[srqrebel]

I dono if what I said answers the question posted by srqrebel but I think it's related.

Umm... yeah.  It does not answer the question, in fact it seems to me that it is perhaps the perspective of someone who does not have a clear definition for the term "initiation of force".

I thought it was a pretty straightforward question: When does the use of force constitute initiation, and when does it not?

It should be pretty clear to most anyone what force is.  The key word that begs clarification is initiation.

Thank you for your input, though... you made some very good points

[Lex]

I dono if what I said answers the question posted by srqrebel but I think it's related.

Umm... yeah.  It does not answer the question, in fact it seems to me that it is perhaps the perspective of someone who does not have a clear definition for the term "initiation of force".

I thought it was a pretty straightforward question: When does the use of force constitute initiation, and when does it not?

It should be pretty clear to most anyone what force is.  The key word that begs clarification is initiation.

Thank you for your input, though... you made some very good points

What I was getting at in my post is that this question may be irrelevent or impossible to answer, kindof like what is the meaning of the universe?

I mean you can think about this question for a very long time and probably come up with some logical explanation but if the reality of violence is inherently irrational what would be the point of trying to figure out a rational explanation.

How would you use the definition of the initiation of force in practice?

In fact, maybe figuring out how to use the definition would allow you to back track and define the definition knowing the context and ways in which it is used.

Just another way of looking at things I guess.

[Jacobus]

Here is my definition of "initiation of force":

:ahem:

Initiation of force occurs when someone infringes upon another person's right to freedom.

So then let's first nail down the definition of freedom 

Snarkiness aside, I don't see the value in trying to nail down seemingly objective definitions of such words.  In fact, I believe that this sort of pursuit leads to the AMOG.  After all, let's assume that you come up with the absolute, objective ethical laws you believe dictate when the use of force is justified or non-justified.  Well then, a government that acts in accordance with those rules of justice would be okay, right?  In fact, that government would be good.

I mean, even if you say "well, only force used in self-defense is justified.  And self-defense is defined as ..." you can come up with some government that is therefore justified in applying force in situations of defense.  If you throw in restitution as being justified, now you've gone ahead and justified not only enforcement officers but court systems as well.

There is another way.  It is to reject the idea that there is some objective justice that can be applied to situations.  Seek not justice.  That also means seeking not to form objective definitions of such concepts as "freedom", "rights", or "initiation of force".  There are no objective definitions to be found, and even among people that largely agree on definitions there will always be boundaries where their ideas lead inevitably to escalation of conflict.

[srqrebel]

How would you use the definition of the initiation of force in practice?

In fact, maybe figuring out how to use the definition would allow you to back track and define the definition knowing the context and ways in which it is used.

The way it would ostensibly be used in practice, is to determine whether a specific act of force should be classified as a crime.

Most people in the freedom community would agree that the initiation of force is clearly a crime, regardless of purpose.  Yet, many -- if not most -- would consider certain non-initiatory acts of force to be within the boundaries of our equal rights, i.e. self-defense.

What I am trying to determine, is what are the boundaries of the latter category, in the words of other 'libertarian' types?

To step up the dialogue a bit, would you consider forcibly blocking a would-be thief from stealing your wallet, to be an initiation of force?

If you see the thief taking your wallet, and subsequently entering his house and locking the door behind him, would you be initiating force if you broke a window to enter his house and forced him to give your wallet back to you?