The popular aversion to "labeling" ("I reject gender stereotypes"... "I don't call myself 'libertarian'") seems really silly to me.
Seems these people are too self-absorbed to admit that they aren't completely unique in every aspect of their lives. It's trendy and hip. But it's also painfully pretentious.
Yes, you probably do have a gender, whether you want to be identified by that gender or not. Very, very few people are perfectly balanced between genders; most tend more toward one than the other- usually almost completely. You may have qualities usually associated with both genders- that changes nothing. And it's nothing to be ashamed of- nor to celebrate. Get over yourself. And stop trying to make people feel bad for referring to you as "he" or "she".
And, if you recognize you have no right to initiate force you are libertarian. You might be a really bad libertarian if you choose to initiate force anyway, but only libertarians recognize that they have no right to initiate force.
I get it- labels can be "limiting". Especially if you are mislabeled or choose to label yourself deceptively. But, in those cases you can change, ignore the label, or demonstrate why it's wrong. And reality is always limiting. Often you can do this or that, but not both. Children don't like that reality and try really hard to deny it.
Labels are a tool, and like any tool can be good or bad. Use them wisely, but accept they are going to be used, whether you like it or not.
.
"And, if you recognize you have no right to initiate force you are libertarian. You might be a really bad libertarian if you choose to initiate force anyway, but only libertarians recognize that they have no right to initiate force. "
ReplyDeleteNot necessarily.
I posit that you have a right to initiate force in defense of your rights. That is to say that violating rights is violence, that violating rights doesn't necessarily mean using force to do so.
Force is rightful if it is in response to violence.
If you are defending your rights, you are nor initiating force.
DeleteNot to disagree, but I think there is an important distinction to make between violence and force.
DeleteViolence can be any action that violates rights, while force is more specific in that it describes the use of physical power.
I think a more accurate way to say it is that if you use force in defense of rights, you are not initiating violence, but are initiating force in response to violence.
Just to be clear, you are using "violence" to mean what I mean when I use the word "aggression": "initiated force". I generally use "violence" and "force" to mean the same thing- an ethically neutral act of physically affecting something or someone. It's not the "act of physically affecting something or someone" which is the problem, but the initiatory use against someone who isn't doing something to be defended against, in other words, someone who isn't "physically affecting something or someone" else, first.
DeleteIt doesn't matter so much which word we mean for each concept as that we understand how the other guy is using the word.
"you have a right to initiate force in defense of your rights."
ReplyDeleteViolence in response to violation isn't initiated force, particularly if. as you say "violating rights is violence" (with which I would agree).
Violence is not bad- aggression (initiated force) is bad. That's why it's the Zero Aggression Principle, not the "Zero Violence Principle".
If you are defending your rights you are not INITIATING force.
Delete