What exactly is "initiation of force"?

[dalebert]

In fact, I believe that this sort of pursuit leads to the AMOG.

BINGO.

[srqrebel]

...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.

Not so fast... you have really no idea where I am going with this yet!

...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.

You make some excellent points here, although it seems to me that you are also making assumptions about where I am going with this that are completely incorrect.

I am not willing to tip my hand until I have seen a significant number of direct responses to this question.  The purpose of posing this question is to see just how widespread a specific interpretation of the term "initiation of force" is, before I involve myself in discussing the philosophical/practical side of it.  Perhaps it not such a widespread misconception as I had thought... so I want to get a good feel for how others are interpreting it before going after something that may be a non-issue.

[srqrebel]

In fact, I believe that this sort of pursuit leads to the AMOG.

BINGO.

Again, please do not assume that you know where I am going with this.

I may agree with your perspective more than you think.  You may not yet be seeing all of mine... by design

[Lex]

What if you accidentally 'initiate force' against someone? Is it still considered initiation of force, would you still carry the same punishment? How does one prove if something was accidental?

[srqrebel]

What if you accidentally 'initiate force' against someone? Is it still considered initiation of force, would you still carry the same punishment? How does one prove if something was accidental?

Excellent point!

[srqrebel]

Assuming this thread does not rapidly get out of hand (which it very well could), I will try to address each of these points and/or concerns once I have gotten a good feel for how others generally interpret initiation.

All of the observations posted so far are excellent ones, and tie right in with where I am ultimately going with this.

At this point, I am specifically seeking concise definitions of this term -- as much as possible -- rather than dialogue on minor variables and usefulness of such a definition.  Those things, and much more, will be addressed later... I promise.

[J’raxis 270145]

Now this is interesting.

There's currently a debate going on over on the FSP forum between Jason Sorens, MaineShark, and I, mostly surrounding the non-aggression principle, and when force is considered acceptable. My take has been that it's only acceptable in response to aggression whereas Jason believes force (in the form of punishment), can be used in other circumstances. Throughout I've been referring to both defense and punishment as two acceptable forms of response to aggression, and only countering his position that punishment in situations other than aggression is impermissible.

After the latest round of posts, I started thinking about that, and I'm not entirely sure that "punishment" for aggression (meaning force used after the fact) is even permissible. So I don't really have a definition to contribute to this thread, but I'm certainly reading it and waiting to see what you and the others come up with.

[srqrebel]

Now this is interesting.

There's currently a debate going on over on the FSP forum between Jason Sorens, MaineShark, and I, mostly surrounding the non-aggression principle, and when force is considered acceptable. My take has been that it's only acceptable in response to aggression whereas Jason believes force (in the form of punishment), can be used in other circumstances. Throughout I've been referring to both defense and punishment as two acceptable forms of response to aggression, and only countering his position that punishment in situations other than aggression is impermissible.

After the latest round of posts, I started thinking about that, and I'm not entirely sure that "punishment" for aggression (meaning force used after the fact) is even permissible. So I don't really have a definition to contribute to this thread, but I'm certainly reading it and waiting to see what you and the others come up with.

We are certainly on the same path!

[d_goddard]

I'm not entirely sure that "punishment" for aggression (meaning force used after the fact) is even permissible.

I don't think anyone here believes "punishment" is acceptable. Use of force to obtain restitution, however, is.

[J’raxis 270145]

I'm not entirely sure that "punishment" for aggression (meaning force used after the fact) is even permissible.

I don't think anyone here believes "punishment" is acceptable. Use of force to obtain restitution, however, is.

Jason had some examples of criminal behavior he believes ought to be "punished," but he didn't specify what he meant by term (nor did I), and he has in the past said he supports a system of "restitutional justice."

Thread here. If you want to contribute to the already tortured terminological sub-debates therein, be my guest.

[dalebert]

I don't think anyone here believes "punishment" is acceptable. Use of force to obtain restitution, however, is.

I believe you're getting to the discussion Menno's trying to have. Just guessing though. As soon as you go there, what starts off reasonably objective regarding the NAP gets murky. There are things we can always do without violating the NAP, i.e. withhold our support and ostracize. I could ostracize you for the silliest of reasons and it wouldn't be an initiation of force because positive rights cannot be supported in a civilized society, though it's not likely others will join me depending on how silly my reason is. I don't have to give you anything, be nice to you, or do any sort of business with you if I don't want to. That's free association. Where it gets murky is when you have transgressed against me in some way, like stolen something, but now you're gone and I'm out of any danger. What amount of force is acceptable? Breaking a window to get my wallet/car keys/cigarette lighter back? Destroying a $2000 safe? Shooting you? If I do harm to you beyond getting my possessions back, have I violated the NAP?

In the same way that I do not possess the superiority to you to choose a punishment for your crime, perhaps I should not assume I have the superior judgment to decide what kind of force is acceptable to enforce restitution. Ostracism ought to be my last resort for restitution though there are a number of things that should be attempted before that's necessary. I would say that if you can manage to obtain restitution without harming your transgressor, you're in pretty safe territory.

You could think of it as a point of view that falls somewhere between the typical AnCap view of the NAP where restitution can be enforced with force and total pacifism.

[d_goddard]

when you have transgressed against me in some way, like stolen something ...  What amount of force is acceptable? Breaking a window to get my wallet/car keys/cigarette lighter back? Destroying a $2000 safe?

Yes to all the above.
I have removed your possessions from you. You need to get them back, or an equivalent wealth-transfer from me to you, in order to be made whole.

Further, any "defense" I present in preventing that transfer -- by locking my stuff up in a car or safe -- is in fact simply further preventing you from getting your wealth back, and as such is stealing your time. By keeping you from property that is rightfully yours, I am in fact further aggressing against you: it's not "defense" at all!

Shooting you?

No. That does not transfer any wealth to you. Unless, of course, I attempt "defend" the stolen property (or the equivalent value in money or other possessions) with potentially lethal force.
In that case, I had it comin', baby!

If I do harm to you beyond getting my possessions back, have I violated the NAP?

Yes.

Ostracism ought to be my last resort for restitution

There is no way to get restitution by ostracism.




I feel a manifesto coming on: "The acceptable-violence approach to peaceful anarchocapitalism"

[J’raxis 270145]

Ostracism ought to be my last resort for restitution

There is no way to get restitution by ostracism.

Au contraire.
This is what made JP get his act together.

[Caleb]

this is what is so great about being a pacifist. you get to watch discussion like this and just smile. 

popcorn for anyone else?   

[dalebert]

this is what is so great about being a pacifist. you get to watch discussion like this and just smile. 

I feel similar when political discussions come up.