Initiation of force, is it inherently bad?

[Autolykos]

What I get from this discussion concerning using force, is that it isn't black and white, and there are no absolute absolutes. Sometimes force is right and sometimes it's wrong. There aren't clear answers for every situation, and we have to live with some ambiguity. Usually forcing an adult against it's will, isn't going to solve more problems than that force creates. Sometimes refusing to initiate force works better in the long run, but it takes resolve and courage, and many won't like the losses taken in the interim, or have the faith and patience pacifism intails. Pacifists do have a pretty strong track record of changing realities even when they are outnumbered, because it's easy to fight against a foe who fights back, it's difficult to fight someone who disengages from violence.

It's initiation of force, not just any use thereof. Please try to remain faithful to the intended topic of discussion.

And finally, once again... just because something solves a problem does not make it morally right.

- Rob

[underbear1]

Using force is initiating force. The absence of using force, is being peaceful.

[Autolykos]

Using force is initiating force. The absence of using force, is being peaceful.

Really? So when someone punches me in the face and I punch them back, we've both initiated force? Thus we are both aggressors?

I'm sorry but it looks like we have different definitions here. When I use the terms "initiation of force" and "aggression", I mean when one uses force against another who has not already used force against him. Thus, in any situation involving use of force, there is always an aggressor (the one who *first* initiated force, if you prefer) and a defender (the one who initiates force *in return*, if you prefer).

Does this clear things up? Let's hope so.

- Rob

[underbear1]

Initiating force without provocation might be a clearer description of your "initiating force" or "aggressor" terms.
I still maintain if you respond with force, to force initiated against you, you have also initiated force. But you have not used force without provocation.

[Autolykos]

Initiating force without provocation might be a clearer description of your "initiating force" or "aggressor" terms.
I still maintain if you respond with force, to force initiated against you, you have also initiated force. But you have not used force without provocation.

Yet some people would consider non-forceful actions, such as insults, to be provocation. We need a more rigorous set of definitions. Maybe the English language isn't sufficient for our purposes...? :eek:

- Rob

[zynner]

Initiating force without provocation might be a clearer description of your "initiating force" or "aggressor" terms.
I still maintain if you respond with force, to force initiated against you, you have also initiated force. But you have not used force without provocation.

"Initiate" = To start.

Two people have a fistfight. One of them started it. He is the one who initiated it. The other guy was acting in self-defense. The initator is the one in the wrong. The other guy is well within his right of self-defense -- even if he beats the initiator to a bloody pulp.

The reason civil courts exist is to figure out "who started it." Who is in the wrong when two parties are at odds? A pacifist would not even defend himself if under attack. That's insane because it means his sure destruction, eventually.

Defending oneself against an aggressor is not an initiation of force. It's a use of force, but not an initiation of force.

It is the initiation of force that is wrong. Always.

This topic is more than just skin deep. The key principle is that the initiation of force is morally wrong because accepting it as right will result in a society in which nobody's rights are respected -- including your own. So, the only way to live in a morally good society is to ban the initiation of force -- by anyone, including government employees. Anything else is a violation of rights, which leads to more and more violations of rights (see: modern day USA).

It makes absolutely no difference if you think that by initating force a good outcome will result. It is still wrong. Nobody appointed you or me or anyone else the god of the world, so nobody has a right to initiate force against anyone else. Any other concept (one that would justify the initiation of force) will result in the kind of society nobody wants to live in.

And, in the end, that is what we are all seeking in such a discussion.

~ zynner

[zynner]

Regarding education (or any other topic) and the initiation of force.

As long as someone wants to convince others that their brand of "education" (whatever that means to them) is great and is willing to work to get others to volunteer to join their parade, there is no problem. "Empowering" people is, on the surface, a fine thing to do if that's your gig.

However, I detect a hidden idea here, too. I detect that this will be forced on others. In other words, if someone does not choose to participate in this educational system -- either by refusing to go to school, send their kids to school, or pay the taxes to fund the school -- then I have a feeling that there will be men with guns and badges going around and knocking on doors and demanding that everybody plays along. If that is the case, then it is an initiation of force and it is wrong.

It makes no difference that someone thinks brilliant things will result from this particular educational plan. For one thing, it never works out as planned. For another, the initiation of force itself means that there will automatically be unintended negative consequences.

Most people want to learn. There is no reason why men with guns are needed to force people to learn. The free market takes care of peoples' needs and desires without the use of force at all. It is all done on a voluntary basis -- except where some people in society get the government politicians to use their force (guns) to gain advantages. If, for example, a utility company gets the govenrment to grant them a monopoly, then the utility and the government have initiated force by eliminating the ability of the customer to find a better alternative, as well as other potential providers to offer a better service.

So, inititating force is not only morally wrong, it is also counterproductive to having and maintaining a good society.

~ zynner

[underbear1]

Initiating force without provocation might be a clearer description of your "initiating force" or "aggressor" terms.
I still maintain if you respond with force, to force initiated against you, you have also initiated force. But you have not used force without provocation.

"Initiate" = To start.
Two people have a fistfight. One of them started it. He is the one who initiated it. The other guy was acting in self-defense. The initator is the one in the wrong. The other guy is well within his right of self-defense -- even if he beats the initiator to a bloody pulp.

The reason civil courts exist is to figure out "who started it." Who is in the wrong when two parties are at odds? A pacifist would not even defend himself if under attack. That's insane because it means his sure destruction, eventually.
Defending oneself against an aggressor is not an initiation of force. It's a use of force, but not an initiation of force.

It is the initiation of force that is wrong. Always.

This topic is more than just skin deep. The key principle is that the initiation of force is morally wrong because accepting it as right will result in a society in which nobody's rights are respected -- including your own. So, the only way to live in a morally good society is to ban the initiation of force -- by anyone, including government employees. Anything else is a violation of rights, which leads to more and more violations of rights (see: modern day USA).

It makes absolutely no difference if you think that by initating force a good outcome will result. It is still wrong. Nobody appointed you or me or anyone else the god of the world, so nobody has a right to initiate force against anyone else. Any other concept (one that would justify the initiation of force) will result in the kind of society nobody wants to live in.

And, in the end, that is what we are all seeking in such a discussion.

~ zynner

The person involved in self defense also STARTS the force from his side of the fight.
Ghandi seems to be the exception to your ideas about pacifists self destructing. Ghandi won India's liberation and lived a nice long life. Jesus, with the one exception of whipping a few money changers, used pacifist principals, and he changed the world, much more significantly than any of the radical Zionists taking up arms against Roman occupation.

[CoffeeSaint]

"Initiate" = To start.

Two people have a fistfight. One of them started it. He is the one who initiated it. The other guy was acting in self-defense. The initator is the one in the wrong. The other guy is well within his right of self-defense -- even if he beats the initiator to a bloody pulp.

Where's the line drawn? What if I shove you? What if I bump into you? What if I threaten you? What if I insult you, and imply a threat?

I'm not asking how you personally would react, I want to know what is considered "starting" a fistfight. And I want to know why "self-defense" includes beating the aggressor to a bloody pulp; when he is no longer acting aggressively, hasn't your self been defended?

The reason civil courts exist is to figure out "who started it." Who is in the wrong when two parties are at odds? A pacifist would not even defend himself if under attack. That's insane because it means his sure destruction, eventually.

I would say civil courts exist to keep people from beating each other into bloody pulps and using the handy excuse of "He started it." That was considered justice in the Wild West; I don't think it still is now.
And as an undestroyed pacifist, I would ask why it is saner to do physical damage to another human being than it is to refuse to do so. Where is the sanity in mayhem and destruction, no matter what the scale is? What does violence ever solve?

Defending oneself against an aggressor is not an initiation of force. It's a use of force, but not an initiation of force.

It is the initiation of force that is wrong. Always.
~ zynner

But not replying with far greater force? How about goading someone into punching you so you can pound them -- if they threw the first punch, they initiated the use of force and therefore they were wrong, and you are within your rights to pound them flat. Is that actually the society you want to live in? Because I would see that as leading to a moral code that teaches people that you can say anything you want to someone, do anything you want to someone, as long as you don't actually hit them first. But if you can get them to hit you, go nuts.

[Technosoul]

"If you keep this debate up I'm going to kill a little bunny" - now would those words have the motive and intent to force someone to conform or react? I think so - if anyone acturally believed on faith that the person who said it would follow through on their "terroristic demands".

Now some companies get a lot of bomb threats. When I worked security we had to determine if the threat was for real or just some prankster who wanted to scare people. ( special training to know the difference). That was back before you could back trace a phone call.

We could up the level by claiming that God will send you into an eternal hell of suffering if you do not repent and join the church. That is force, but again only if someone believes that the speaker is relating a truth. And that force can even result in a "fist fight" where people will "fight back" at the source of the remarks with "logical debates" (word fights).

Now I could up the level of concern if I posted a photo of me holding a cute little bunny. Just like North Korea could up the level of concern by displaying nuclear abilities. But all that is "attempted force" even if it does not "work" nor if it does not have the results intended.

Now I could insult someone with a few words and they might get mad and throw a punch at me, then I could claim "self defense" and claim that they initated the action with the first punch. If I called you "the axes of evil" you might feel like knocking my block off. If I called your mother something bad at a redneck bar, I had better be prepared to defend my self. But that is a con game, self defense is often a follow up for a "first stike" if the person motivates that reaction with their words or actions. As long as you can find someone foolish enough to "buy into it".

If someone acts and looks stupid they might encourage someone smarter to take advantage of them - and they would loose money or in some manner get raped. In an around-about-way weakness can force action from those who make a living at being agressive. Even without the weaker of the two being so motivated to cause such a reaction. A tiny bunny does not force the hawk to wolf to pounce on it, but by it's very nature it does cause that response. Good for the Hawks but not good for the cute little bunny. So one critters good is another one's evil.

[underbear1]

Not all bunnies are defenseless, here's one of my favorite images, which I won't post, cuz I've been warned about that.
http://www.thisisbunny.com/images/wolf-bunny.jpg

The caption should be, " I might look cute and fuzzy, but don't f*ck with me!"

[Captain Chaos]

However, I detect a hidden idea here, too. I detect that this will be forced on others. In other words, if someone does not choose to participate in this educational system -- either by refusing to go to school, send their kids to school, or pay the taxes to fund the school -- then I have a feeling that there will be men with guns and badges going around and knocking on doors and demanding that everybody plays along. If that is the case, then it is an initiation of force and it is wrong.

I am arguing for how tax money should be spent - as an investment in human capital. If you feel people should not have to pay taxes, that is a separate argument. If you feel parents should be allowed to not send their kids to school so that they can grow up to be ditch diggers - that, too, is a separate argument. I think not educating your kids is child abuse, and I think child abuse should be illegal.

But, my point is what government should do with its money - It should hire private firms, in a competitive environment, to carry out investments in human capital that produce a clear payback to society - to the taxpayers who are investing.