Whether you adhere to the Special Principle of Libertarianism (the Zero Aggression Principle/Non-aggression Principle) or the General Principle of Libertarianism (the Zero Archation Principle) you personally accept that this reminds you that you have no right to either initiate force or to archate, depending on your favored version.
Now I can't speak for you, but if I have no right to do something, I take that to mean I shouldn't do that thing. Maybe you see it differently.
And whether you do or not is up to you, and changes nothing on my end.
When I say I'm a libertarian and that this means I live by the ZAP, I mean that this is a promise from me to you. I accept that I have no right to archate, and I will always aim to live up to that. If I fail, I accept that you have the right to defend yourself and your property.
It's also a warning of sorts. If you choose to archate, there is no law (or legislation) which can void my right to self-defense, defense of others, or defense of private property. None. If I believe you have the upper hand, I might choose to not employ defensive measures, but it's not guaranteed. Take the risk if it means that much to you.
Accept my promise or ignore it. It remains the same either way.
"Whether you adhere to the Special Principle of Libertarianism (the Zero Aggression Principle/Non-aggression Principle) or the General Principle of Libertarianism (the Zero Archation Principle) you personally accept that this reminds you that you have no right to either initiate force or to archate, depending on your favored version."
ReplyDeleteI personally agree with the Zero Archation Principle because initiating force is justified in defense of rights, that it's not only reserved for a response to force.
Violence comes in many forms, not only the use of force. If you are being violated and abused, and there is no chance of reasonable peaceful resolution, do what you have to in order to defend yourself, your rights and life.
If it's defense it's not an initiation of force- it is a response to archation (as a reminder, archation includes the initiation of force along with everything else no one has a right to do) or to a credible threat to archate. I wouldn't just go hunt down some guy who was making empty threats online that he had no way to actually carry out.
DeleteI think we are essentially in agreement here. Theft and invasion of privacy and coercion, etc., etc.., while not actual physical force, has the same value as using force to violate. Thus the right to defense applies, which can include the use of force.
DeleteFor example; someone steals your property and refuse to give it back, and are willing and capable of using force to keep it. It would then be rightful to use force to retrieve your property. ...or maybe a retrieval agent/repo man using weapons as necessary.