Marketism/initiation of violence

Jump to: navigation, search

Marketists argue[1] that there is never any just cause to initiate violence[2] (also known as the non-aggression principle) but also that threats to initiate violence qualify as initiation of violence[3].

This leaves open the following questions:

  • Does any lethal threat qualify, or is there a "credibility" criterion?
    • If a threat must be credible, how do we make that determination?
  • Is escalation acceptable (i.e. responding with greater force than was threatened)?
    • If so, is there any limit on how much escalation is acceptable?


  1. 2015-03-21 comments on Google+:
  2. ibid. "i would never accept anybody or any institution that would initiate violence.. PERIOD!.... there is never any adequate cause." — Dean R Black
  3. ibid. "Threats of violence are considered initiation of force +CWRE, just a fraud is still theft and plotting a crime is still a crime and not "free speech"." — Allballz