Marketism/initiation of violence - Revision history

Woozle: NAP

2015-03-21T22:35:07Z

NAP

Woozle: "violence" needs at least a definitional note

2015-03-21T21:36:15Z

"violence" needs at least a definitional note

Woozle: Created page with "Marketists argue that there is never any cause for the initiation of violence, but also that ''threats'' to initiate violence qualify as..."

2015-03-21T21:30:05Z

Created page with "Marketists argue<ref name=gplus1 /> that there is never any cause for the initiation of violence,<ref name=gplus1a /> but also that ''threats'' to initiate violence qualify as..."

New page

Marketists argue<ref name=gplus1 /> that there is never any cause for the initiation of violence,<ref name=gplus1a /> but also that ''threats'' to initiate violence qualify as initiation of violence<ref name=gplus1b />.

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?
==Sources==
<references>
<ref name=gplus1>'''2015-03-21''' [https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/109185295204629063487/+Bitchypundit/posts/JDe1W2RZAqj comments on Google+]:</ref>
<ref name=gplus1a>''ibid.'' "i would never accept anybody or any institution that would initiate violence.. PERIOD!.... there is never any adequate cause." — Dean R Black</ref>
<ref name=gplus1b>''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</ref>
</references>

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:35, 21 March 2015
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	Marketists argue<ref name=gplus1 /> that there is never any cause ~~for the initiation of~~ {{l/same\|violence}},<ref name=gplus1a /> but also that ''threats'' to initiate violence qualify as initiation of violence<ref name=gplus1b />.	+	Marketists argue<ref name=gplus1 /> that there is never any just cause to '''initiate {{l/same\|violence}}'''<ref name=gplus1a /> (also known as the {{l/same\|non-aggression principle}}) but also that ''threats'' to initiate violence qualify as initiation of violence<ref name=gplus1b />.

	This leaves open the following questions:		This leaves open the following questions:

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:36, 21 March 2015
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	Marketists argue<ref name=gplus1 /> that there is never any cause for the initiation of violence,<ref name=gplus1a /> but also that ''threats'' to initiate violence qualify as initiation of violence<ref name=gplus1b />.	+	Marketists argue<ref name=gplus1 /> that there is never any cause for the initiation of {{l/same\|violence}},<ref name=gplus1a /> but also that ''threats'' to initiate violence qualify as initiation of violence<ref name=gplus1b />.

	This leaves open the following questions:		This leaves open the following questions: