“Self defense against the initiation of force” is subject to many arguments. What constitutes the right to self defense against threats ? Being controlled is just as bad as being beat up or killed in my mind. Stopping this control is going to become unbelievably difficult in the near future. I’ll express my views soon on why the NAP will reduce or eliminate effectiveness in making gains towards freedom. Thanks to the founders of this forum for the opportunity to express such views.
Samm
One cannot defend against a threat.
That’s not a moral statement, but a linguistic one.
A threat is merely a statement of intent, it is not an action, so there is nothing to defend against.
Under the declaration “no one shall initiate force against another” which if agreed upon would remove ones ability to counter threats with violence. Do you believe that we need to restrain from using violence to counter threats regardless of how severe a threat might be ?
Samm
Yes, I do believe that responding to words with physical violence is immoral.
Knowing what I know now, if I had access to the original paper document I signed I would physically strike my signature from it. Over the years since I made my mark on it, I’ve realized that the words on it mean nothing in reality when trying to communicate commonly held ideas between a herd of cats. They will always arbitrarily redefine them to jive with their individualist beliefs, just like this thread is an example of.
This is true of anything you (or anyone) writes or says. Even silence will be self-defined by those who “hear” it. All that should matter is your understanding of the words at the time they are uttered.
Unless, of course, one’s talking about a contract or agreement, in which case all parties involved need to share an understanding. But the Shire Society Declaration is not a contract.
BTW, my prior comments in this thread had nothing to do with the Shire Society Declaration itself, but only with the portions of Sam’s comments that I quoted each time.
I wasn’t singling you out, you both have your own meanings to those words…as do I.
You are good at precise wording and explaining yourself as if it came from a book of law or something, Aahz.
Were you a prosecutor before grasping the truth ?
I like how you replaced “threat” with “words” in your above response. There are other expressed threats besides words. You already knew this right ? Thanks for the clear definition of “threat” as a statement of intent that can’t be defended against. I will say that threats can be “countered” instead.
Jay mentions that “they will always arbitrarily redefine them to jive with their individualist beliefs”. I hope all in the Shire will do just that. I recently listened to someone grill another on their beliefs in the NAP which made it sound much like propaganda. It reminded me to rescind.
Signing the declaration has nothing to do with finding good people here.
Samm
NAP usually defines threats of forcible interference as “aggression”.
Jay is right. Everyone defines everything from their own perspective.
I kind of like Ted Kaczynski’s 6 principles.
Do not harm anyone who has not previously harmed you, or threatened to do so.
(Principle of self-defense and retaliation) You can harm others in order to forestall harm with which they threaten you, or in retaliation for harm that they have already inflicted on you.
One good turn deserves another: If someone has done you a favor, you should be willing to do her or him a comparable favor if and when he or she should need one.
The strong should have consideration for the weak.
Do not lie.
Abide faithfully by any promises or agreements that you make.
3 Likes
Ted is right about many things. Go figure, the most intellectual revolutionary of modern times is behind bars. His views are free though.
Samm
Speaking is an action. No philosophy that precludes self-defense against actions will stand the rigors of time. Although, I believe that over-reacting to a threat or any other initiation of force is a new initiation, I think that issuing threats will fall out of style if someone gets punched in the mouth every time they threaten someone.
*Note, a threat is distinct from a warning. “Imma punch you in the eye” threat. “Imma punch you in the eye, if you come in my yard.” warning.
1 Like
“I’m going to punch you in the eye the time I see you.”
And thus 1000 pages of Facebook debate was written.
Kaczynski is not in prison for his views, but for actions that violated even his own professed principles.
Wrong.
Those actions didn’t violate his principles :
I’d argue that Ted used self defense.
Samm
“Only the hermit is completely free.”
1 Like
You can find a list of the bombings at wikipedia. It lists 14 named individuals damaged by the bombs (and 12 unnamed airline passengers).
I challenge you to share with us us how even half of those 26 people threatened or inflicted harm directly to Kaczynski.
If you understand Kaczynski’s writings you’d understand that he was/is interested in not just “self” defense, but in defense of many. The most un-selfish man I have ever read about. I will ad: Rabbit Hunter Extraordinaire.
Samm
So, in other words, you have no evidence that anyone he harmed ever threatened or harmed him.
It’s humorous that you infer I don’t understand Kaczynski’s writings when you don’t seem familiar enough with them yourself to know that he admits his actions were both unjust and cruel and that he regrets having attacked innocent people.
The number of people on this forum willing to glorify an indiscriminate murderer appalls me.
1 Like
The number doesn’t seem to be more than 1…
1 Like
The observable fact that there are people who say they’re willing to punish/kill others because they disagreed with what the person they’re attacking defined as “initiation of force” makes the whole concept of the NAP as some universal rule useless.