Marketism/initiation of violence
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
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