Thursday, January 07, 2016

When shooting first isn't aggression

I recently read this column: Shoot First: The Han Solo Principle, and found a lot to disagree with.

For example...

If a person is holding you at gunpoint, force has already been initiated and you are acting in self defense to shoot first. The shot was not the initiation of force- not aggression- holding you at gunpoint was. Stating the intention of killing you is the second initiation of force. Go ahead and shoot; you wouldn’t be initiating force.

By my reckoning Han didn’t break his contract with Jabba- government (The Empire) got in the way and prevented the completion of the deal. When government is around it does this. Jabba knew, as did Han. It is a risk of doing business. Jabba would have been justified in sending Greedo after the government employees who actually caused the problem, but as a cowardly gangster he chose what he thought was a safer target. It's what bullies do.

Then, as always, people who want to try to reserve the "right" to initiate force start reaching for what they see as holes in the principle.

Pollution is a violation of property rights, which may or may not be aggression. Some people consider violations of property rights aggression and some don’t- and it doesn’t matter either way. Aggression isn’t the only wrong. Don't take, destroy, or damage the property of others.

Those who fear liberty always try to use children to hide behind. This guy followed the script.

Children do not belong to parents- parents are responsible for children. There is a difference. By having a child you are agreeing to be responsible for a person until the rightful owner of that person- which can only be the self- is capable of taking over the responsibility.

And then, he did something really bizarre. He tried to use States, the imaginary god of the statists, to show why Zero Aggression "can't work" when applied to States. What?

When you try to apply principles to States like the US you are completely going off the map. States- actually those who maintain them- are aggressors by definition. They claim a monopoly on the use of force within their "borders"- and will murder to prop up the illusion. They “tax” under threat of death, they kidnap, murder, and violate human rights with every thing they do. Including when they bomb or invade individuals who were not personally responsible for an attack on the “US”. States do nothing without initiating force, since they can’t even exist without initiating force.

If you want to “reserve the right” to initiate force (a right which can’t exist), then why are you worrying about the details? Just go ahead and be an aggressor and accept the consequences.