Those who have conniptions about "illegal immigrants" ganging up with American anti-gun bigots to vote away my liberty are, again, missing a big part of the picture.
Just as their behavior is creating new "Democrats" (as if "Republicans" respect liberty any better), they are driving them to be anti-gun.
If you were to move into an area where people are gnashing their teeth about your presence, and you were given the (illegitimate) opportunity to vote to take those people's guns away from them, you'd need to have a very solid foundation in absolute human rights to pass up that chance.
I could do it- as my lack of support for "borders", anti-gun "laws", and assorted State actions that might "benefit" me in some way should demonstrate. But most people, especially coming from a place where government and freelance aggressors were constantly shooting the "legally" disarmed innocent, need some better experiences to learn from.
Hating them, telling them they must go through an illegal "legal" process to live where they want, and then acting like a threat to them, isn't going to accomplish what you claim to be your goal. You have adopted a really bad system to get where you claim to want to be, and the result will be inevitable if you don't change tactics.
.
Something to consider;
ReplyDeleteThreats don't always come in the form of physical violence, but may require violence as a means of defense. This is where ZAP fails. More specifically, the idea that in order for an act of violence to qualify as an act of defense, a threat must be a clear and present immediate physical threat.
It can be a clear present violation of your rights and threat to you without being physically violent.
For example; Your life is your time. Your body is you. If you trade your time and wear and tear on your body for monetary compensation, then exchange that money for property, ...that property is an extension of you. It is the value of X time of your physical being.
If someone takes that property against your consent, they are stealing you. In order to replace it, you must exert more effort and time. Thus the value becomes double what you originally invested. You must now invest another X time to acquire the same property, plus accept the loss of your original X time investment.
If that stolen property is an essential or necessity, or tool to facilitate a necessity, then the theft of that essential is a threat to your welfare and survival.
If you earn an automobile, and use it for earning an income as well as gathering groceries, medication, and household necessities, etc, it's value to you has come at a profit relative to your original investment, as well as being a necessary tool for survival. If someone steals it from you, they are putting you into a position whereby you are not only losing the value plus the investment to replace it, but also where your profit from it and survival is threatened. There was no act of physical violence against you, but your survival is nonetheless threatened. It is equivalent to a direct physical threat.
You have the right to protect your property, even if violently. If you catch them in the act of stealing, you can defend your property with violence. But if you do not catch them in the act, it is no less an immediate threat. If you reasonably conclude that, without your vehicle, you will lose your ability to sustain your existence within Z time period, it is the equivalent of a direct physical threat. Regardless of the circumstances of the theft, as soon as it is gone, you're in a heap of shit.
If you find the thief or recipient of your vehicle along with your vehicle, you have an absolute right to it, and can take it by force if necessary. If they do not willingly cooperate with your reacquisition of your property, a violent response is justified and within your right. Shoot them and take it back, or suffer the consequence of their violation.
"Threats don't always come in the form of physical violence, but may require violence as a means of defense."
DeleteMaking a credible threat to initiate force isn't yet violence, but is something you can meet with force. The ZAP says "nor to advocate" the initiation of force, which would pretty much be threatening to have someone else initiate force on your behalf. Someone threatening to do so personally, when they have the ability to carry out that threat, certainly is something you can defend yourself from. A credible threat to initiate force, or to violate your property rights, still falls within the right to defend yourself, per the ZAP.
Some people specifically consider theft to be an initiation of force- I'm not convinced of that, even though I know theft is wrong and support the right to use force in defense of property- for much the same reasons you point out. It's why I can't condemn those who use force to stop an IRS agent. Even if theft isn't an initiation of force, it is still wrong, and I have always pointed out the ZAP is essential, but not sufficient.
I'll see if I can find old posts where I have said much the same as you just did. Not having any luck, so I'll re-state it here:
Theft (or simply making up "laws" which prevent you from using your property as you'd prefer) steals part of your life- the part you spent in doing the work to gain that property. You can never get that part of your life back, and if you had known it would be taken from you, you might have spent that tie doing something else instead You have every right to use force to prevent that theft or to regain control of your property- fully consistent with the ZAP.
Your DNA says that you are human and will do A B C. You can be a human and essentially rightfully do anything you want, as long as it does not violate or encroach upon the rights of others to be human and do what they want. It is mutuality, of a universally balanced and beneficial principle and standard.
DeleteTo violate rights is to deny someone their humanity and rightful existence.
If necessary, whenever threatened or faced with violation, you also have a right to defense, which is not necessarily limited other than by the point in which it violates another. I will also posit and recommend that physical attack in defense should be exercised with solid judgement and restraint, reserved to what is necessary.
I find disagreement with some libertarians/anarchists who posit the use of physical violence as strictly a response to physical violence, as there are many forms of legitimate threats to your rightful existence in which violence in defense is within your right.
Something else to point out is the relevance to the concept of time. Your rightful existence is limited by death. You exist for a limited time only, otherwise you may not value your rights the same.