Senator Dianne Feinstein is finally dead.
I'm told I shouldn't be relieved over an evil person's death.
Well, I can't be sad about it.
Those who want you to doubt that anarchy (self-ownership and individual responsibility) is the best, most moral, and ethical way to live among others are asking you to accept that theft, aggression, superstition, and slavery are better.
I'm told I shouldn't be relieved over an evil person's death.
Well, I can't be sad about it.
It's popular to say you're against it.
I take the opposite side. I am enthusiastically pro-violence when that violence is defensive. This stand got me perma-banned on TwiXXer. I wasn't wrong.
I'm against offensive violence; the initiation of violence (aggression).
Violence is just the use of physical force. Boxing is violent, but as it is mutually consensual I'm not going to stop anyone from pursuing that sport (as much as I personally dislike it). Much of the play I engaged in as a kid was violent. Sometimes I got hurt. But as long as no one was initiating force no one was in the wrong. Sometimes kids need to roughhouse. They "crave violence" and that can be channeled in healthy directions.
I know there are those who insist on simply calling aggression "violence" and say if it's defensive it's not violence.
In that case, as long as they oppose "violence" under their definition, I'm on the same side-- we simply disagree over definitions and that's fine with me. I know how they define it (and they can know how I define it) and there shouldn't be any real conflict.
Sometimes, like it or not, it takes a violent response to stop a bad guy or to save people from a thug. It's not a choice I want to make, but if a bad guy chooses that path, I'll play.
Pacifists don't like that and would rather die and see other innocents die than use violence in defense. That's their choice, and while I think it can be pathetic to live that way, as long as they don't try to stop me (and how would they, considering their belief?) they can be pacifistic to the end.
But not me.
Violence is not unethical. By itself, it is neither good nor bad. It is ethically neutral. It's like a rock sitting in a creek. It is a tool with the potential to be used for good or bad.
Aggression is unethical. It is the act of using that rock to crack someone's head so you can steal their food. Even if you don't use the rock yourself, but hire crooks and thugs (government) to crack the heads and steal food on your behalf.
Shooting the aggressor who is making a credible threat to hit you with the rock so he can further violate your life, liberty, or property is completely ethical. It is good. Even though his worthless relatives will inevitably say what a "good boy" he was before you shot him "for no reason".
If you choose aggression, I hope someone will use violence and stop you. I just hope it doesn't have to be me, but that's not up to me, is it?