Difference between revisions of "Marketism/initiation of violence"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(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...") |
(NAP) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | Marketists argue<ref name=gplus1 /> that there is never any cause | + | 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: | ||
Latest revision as of 22:35, 21 March 2015
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?
Sources
- ↑ 2015-03-21 comments on Google+:
- ↑ ibid. "i would never accept anybody or any institution that would initiate violence.. PERIOD!.... there is never any adequate cause." — Dean R Black
- ↑ 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