| | To me, I think it would be a matter of perception. (as, indeed, context seems to define things in Objectivism) The key word, I believe, is *initiate.* A quick hop to Dictionary.com gives me this primary definition:
To set going by taking the first step; begin
This is the only definition, in fact, that relates to the use of the word that applies here. And the key phrase seems to be "taking the first step."
The "first step" in violence is not necessarily the violence itself. In fact, it's rarely the first step. The THREAT of violence is clearly coercion in and of itself. I do not believe one could possibly argue that someone saying "give me your money or I'll kill you" is not initiating violence, even if a weapon is not in plain view. A man wouldn't logically say something like that unless he could back it up, so he must have a weapon somewhere. Or perhaps he knows kung-fu. Either way with all things being equal, in the interest of self-preservation, I *must* assume someone who is threatening to take my life, even without visible means of doing so, in fact has the means and is planning to do so.
But this must be weighed, of course, by the plausibility of the threat. If I'm holding my girlfriend down and I'm tickling her, and she shouts "stop stop or I'll kill you!" she clearly is not threatening my life. Nor can a bum on a street shouting that he'd like to kill the president be considered a credible threat as he very clearly not in any position to do so.
So the initiation of force, as I see it, would primarily depend on the power of one making the threat in relation to the one being threatened. Which, really, is pretty much the same policy we have in America. A child threatening to kill a man with his bare hands is clearly no threat and you aren't justified in killing him. However, if the child has a gun... suddenly he IS a threat and killing him might be justified.
I think it's one of those places where you have to admit that there are no hard and fast rules. It's entirely based on the relative power of those involved and the perceptions of each.
What I find more interesting is to question at what point the blatant threat of the use of power - in whatever form - has become "initiation of force." Threatening to kill someone clearly is. But what about, say, embargoes? That probably involves force. How about punitive tarriffs? That's definitely throwing your power around... Or what about workers threatening a walkout? "Give us what we want or we cripple your plant?" That would seem to be coercive force, especially if the manufacturer is in the logically superior situation... yet Atlas Shrugged itself is BASED on the concept of using a strike as a power tool. (and indeed, when the workers went on strike at Rearden's plant, she had to turn them into a destructive mob so that they would suddenly be "wrong," when, in fact, a non-violent but deeply coercive strike is completely possible and happens all the time)
There are so many subtle possibilities in there for interpretation of what EXACTLY constitutes "initiation" of force. What it really seems to boil down to, as I said, is blatant exercise of *power* rather than literal "force." But I don't think that's what Rand intended.
At least, I'm not sure.
|
|
