I’d especially like to know if voluntaryists have made significant progress on Earth or should we plan on colonizing some rock in space before Earthlings destroy themselves by means of a government gone mad and nuking the planet.

As you say, they don’t use violence, so no one uses violence against them. Even to “enforcing” a judgement.

http://www.bigheadpress.com/tpbtgn?page=1

You’ll find lots of people talk about proportional response to aggression. Someone who violates a contract being sued is not answering “fraud” with “violence”. It is answering fraud with suit, neither of which is violence.

I’m not sure human nature will ever reach that point, but at the least the laws against personal self defense must be repealed. The rapist deserves to fear for his life if he ever tries to do his thing.

Thanks for sharing your point of view.

Regards

I am sorry to keep pressing this point, but I feel it is a valid one and should not be dropped. When you say, “No immediate force need be used against fraud,” you seem to imply that at some point, force may morally be used against fraud. I respectfully disagree with this. The point at which force is used in response to fraud, aggressive force has been used, not defensive force, because fraud is not force. This is in conflict with the nonaggression principle. I agree with you, people may morally attempt to collect damages, but may only morally do so without using force (e.g., credit reporting agencies).

Your point about measured force is well received here; it’s very rare to hear a voluntaryist bother to discuss the extent to which defensive force is moral. I couldn’t agree with you more - I think you nailed it on the head.

Much respect,
Rye Terrell

> I must respectfully disagree with the idea that fraud is, or is equivalent to, force. It most clearly is not force.

I probably didn’t express myself properly. I meant that it is equivalent only to the extent to which it causes someone to act in a way (s)he otherwise wouldn’t (therefore unnaturally). Fraud in itself indeed is not force, but as you also seem to agree it is still wrong and can therefore give the cheated one the right to seek damages. But of course, no immediate force need be used against fraud.

That’s one point to make about voluntaryism. Whenever force is even admitted as rightful, it’s amount should never exceed what is necessary for the damage to be repaired or else it would be a slippery slope towards revenge, not reparations.

—

Thomas, my pleasure and thank you for the link!

Best regards

I must respectfully disagree with the idea that fraud is, or is equivalent to, force. It most clearly is not force. I do believe it to be immoral to lie, but I do not believe it moral to respond to a lie with force. Suggesting that fraud is force is in the same vein as suggesting that withholding your money from a poor person is force.

Neither use force.

Probably the only place I’d be willing to bend on this is with respect to the threat of force, although I do admit that bending on this is absent any logic respecting the non-aggression axiom.

Much respect,
Rye Terrell

I do like what it represents.