Photo - child stalked by vulture

James,

You argued earlier in this thread that an eminent domain taking is legitimate in a battlefield context. You said yes, this is a violation of the rights of the property owner, but that the initiation of force is from the attackers, not the defenders who require the land.

You have also argued elsewhere that innocents killed in a foreign country we attack have their [own] government to blame for the initiation of force against them.

So what’s wrong with saying that I must testify in your favor when you are wrongly accused of murder and in threat of execution, if I have information that would exonerate you? Can’t we say, yes Jon is forced to testify, but the initiation of force is from the murderer I can identify rather than from your defense attorney or the state?

James,

You argued earlier in this thread that an eminent domain taking is legitimate in a battlefield context. You said yes, this is a violation of the rights of the property owner, but that the initiation of force is from the attackers, not the defenders who require the land.

You have also argued elsewhere that innocents killed in a foreign country we attack have their [own] government to blame for the initiation of force against them.

So what’s wrong with saying that I must testify in your favor when you are wrongly accused of murder and in threat of execution, if I have information that would exonerate you? Can’t we say, yes Jon is forced to testify, but the initiation of force is from the murderer I can identify rather than from your defense attorney or the state?

To the others -- who aren't one of us 3 Musketeers inside a lawless land -- be sure that I, for one, would protect you from brutes or savages who show no respect for life or justice. This is not altruism. I would protect you because I've found you to be of such value to me. I would also, of course, fight a personal threat to me that might otherwise grow -- if it were not met with a violent and immediate force.

And I would also do it because, if I just sat there still, watching a brute grabbing at your food, smacking you down when you try to defend it -- even though it's merely one meal you'd have lost to a "man" with no respect for life or justice -- I'd feel psychological costs. Instead of merely watching a savage brute take your meal from you forcefully, I would grab a nearby rock, and smash it into his head -- hard enough to break his skull.

When dealing with such an organism -- one who has no respect for life or justice -- in such a land, I would attempt to "rehabilitate/incapacitate" him. I would deal with him as if he were a wild animal -- i.e., by a forceful "containment" of his abilities to live his life in the way that he sees fit.

To wrap-up then, my 3 moral reasons for the initiation of force at the time would be to:

(1) secure my own physical survival
(2) protect my outer values (i.e., you guys and gals)
(3) protect my inner values (i.e., my conscience, self-esteem, and my very peace of mind from acting toward the world I want to live in)

I don't understand the objection Bill. How does objectivism justify a nation going to war in its self-defense that may result in the deaths of civilians residing in that aggressor nation then? If it's not the nation who is defending itself that is at fault for killing civilians, then how do we square this away with the NOIF principle if we are to apply it devoid of any context? If the use of force is put into its proper context I don't think there is a legitimate slippery slope argument to make here. We can certainly make an intellectual distinction between a subpoena power for instance (which is to establish justice) and a welfare argument (which is to establish a marxist welfare state).