Republicans Vs. Republican TEA Partiers

[Ted]

.....Wow. Ok.

If someone tries to kill you, and you respond with force, you didn't initiate that force. The person trying to kill you did.

This is the important distinction. Both are force. Only one is initiated.

You're going to compare this to Westboro Baptist Church? Are you high?

You just contradicted yourself and proved my point. Murder isn't the attempt, it is end result of the initiation of force.

Beyond your twisting of common words and phrases, I guess I could have always compared your definition to Bill Clinton instead........

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0[/ame]

 

[Ted]

And goodbye, old friend. I'll genuinely miss you. There is a severe shortage of people around here with your viewpoint to debate with.

Oh, wait.

Often times, less is more, and in this case.........it would be wise for you to contribute more.

Especially when one approaches facts from the unique standpoint of being wrong.

 

[steveh_131]

You just contradicted yourself and proved my point. Murder isn't the attempt, it is end result of the initiation of force.

Beyond your twisting of common words and phrases, I guess I could have always compared your definition to Bill Clinton instead........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0

Here's a link if you're interested in having any idea what you're talking about:

Principle of non-aggression - Mises Wiki

I'm sure you won't read much of it, but this ends my attempts at explaining it to you.

 

[Ted]

Here's a link if you're interested in having any idea what you're talking about:

Principle of non-aggression - Mises Wiki

I'm sure you won't read much of it, but this ends my attempts at explaining it to you.

Again, you contradicted yourself and proved my point. There is a world of difference between initiating a threat, than that of the final act of terminating a life.

From the very link you cited:

"Aggression" is defined as the "initiation" of physical force against persons or property, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property.

 

[steveh_131]

Again, you contradicted yourself and proved my point. There is a world of difference between initiating a threat, than that of the final act of terminating a life.

From the very link you cited:

What, exactly, is your point? I honestly don't even know what we're arguing about.

 

[Ted]

What, exactly, is your point? I honestly don't even know what we're arguing about.

My point is that you are incorrect that you state that murder is an initiation of force.

 

[steveh_131]

Ted, I would recommend reading up on the subject or just letting it go.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the entire principle.

 

[Ted]

Ted, I would recommend reading up on the subject or just letting it go.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the entire principle.

By your own referenced sources, you can't acknowledge that your position is in conflict with said references. If murder is truly an "initiation" of force, what is the part about picking up the gun, pipe, axe, or bat called? The "Pre-initiation"?

I've already read considerable amounts upon the subject, and still don't understand how you feel that your definitions are consistent with the stated and authoritative positions taken by those more knowledgeable than either one of us.

 

[jamil]

My point is that you are incorrect that you state that murder is an initiation of force.

Ted, I would recommend reading up on the subject or just letting it go.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the entire principle.

No, but the point is only a technical nit. You've said what makes murder illegal or wrong is that murder is initiation of force. Pounding the victim's head in with a rock is the initiation of force. Murder is the result. But it's at best a minor nit. Like saying fries make you fat. No, fries don't make you fat. Eating too many fries makes you fat. Message is still clear though technically wrong. Fries can't make you fat until you eat too many, and you can't be murdered without initiation of force as the Libertarian doctrine defines it.

 

[steveh_131]

By your own referenced sources, you can't acknowledge that your position is in conflict with said references. If murder is truly an "initiation" of force, what is the part about picking up the gun, pipe, axe, or bat called? The "Pre-initiation"?

I've already read considerable amounts upon the subject, and still don't understand how you feel that your definitions are consistent with the stated and authoritative positions taken by those more knowledgeable than either one of us.

Good grief, Ted. You're honestly telling me you read up on this stuff?

The initiation of force has nothing to do with the acts leading up to the actual force. It has to do with who is initiating force and who is simply responding to force already initiated. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

No, but the point is only a technical nit. You've said what makes murder illegal or wrong is that murder is initiation of force. Pounding the victim's head in with a rock is the initiation of force. Murder is the result. But it's at best a minor nit. Like saying fries make you fat. No, fries don't make you fat. Eating too many fries makes you fat. Message is still clear though technically wrong. Fries can't make you fat until you eat too many, and you can't be murdered without initiation of force as the Libertarian doctrine defines it.

I think I agree with this.

 

[Ted]

......The initiation of force has nothing to do with the acts leading up to the actual force. It has to do with who is initiating force and who is simply responding to force already initiated. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Really? It isn't what you said about it earlier.

Murder should be illegal because it is an initiation of force, not because it is 'immoral'. That was what I was getting at.

 

[steveh_131]

Murder is an initiation of force. The word 'initiation' in that expression is not specifying the actions that come before the actual murder. That is not what the term means in this context.

The word 'initiation' is included in the expression so that there is a distinction between two types of force. Force that is initiated and force that is simply a reaction to the aggressor.

Example. If someone tries to steal your car, that is an initiation of force. If you shoot them to prevent them from doing so, that is also force. But it is not an initiation of force. The force was initiated by the person committing the theft.

Murder is also an initiation of force. Defending yourself from someone trying to kill you is not.

I don't know what else to say on the subject. Read the link if you care to become informed.

 

[Ted]

Murder is an initiation of force. The word 'initiation' in that expression is not specifying the actions that come before the actual murder. That is not what the term means in this context.

So you're redefining the word, "initiation", by taking a word that is defined as something entirely different.

The word 'initiation' is included in the expression so that there is a distinction between two types of force. Force that is initiated and force that is simply a reaction to the aggressor.

Can't someone initiate a response to the initial aggressor?

Example. If someone tries to steal your car, that is an initiation of force. If you shoot them to prevent them from doing so, that is also force. But it is not an initiation of force. The force was initiated by the person committing the theft.

As used in your example to define, shouldn't you instead state that initiation of force is when someone tries to murder, instead of stating that murder is an initiation of force?

Murder is also an initiation of force. Defending yourself from someone trying to kill you is not.

Defending oneself from someone who has murdered you? How does that work?

I don't know what else to say on the subject. Read the link if you care to become informed.

You should quit as you keep falling behind.

 

[KLB]

So you're redefining the word, "initiation", by taking a word that is defined as something entirely different.



Can't someone initiate a response to the initial aggressor?



As used in your example to define, shouldn't you instead state that initiation of force is when someone tries to murder, instead of stating that murder is an initiation of force?



Defending oneself from someone who has murdered you? How does that work?



You should quit as you keep falling behind.

Of the many idiotic arguments I have seen on INGO, this has to be very close to the top of the list.

 

[jamil]

Really? It isn't what you said about it earlier.

Murder is an initiation of force. The word 'initiation' in that expression is not specifying the actions that come before the actual murder. That is not what the term means in this context.

The word 'initiation' is included in the expression so that there is a distinction between two types of force. Force that is initiated and force that is simply a reaction to the aggressor.

Example. If someone tries to steal your car, that is an initiation of force. If you shoot them to prevent them from doing so, that is also force. But it is not an initiation of force. The force was initiated by the person committing the theft.

Murder is also an initiation of force. Defending yourself from someone trying to kill you is not.

I don't know what else to say on the subject. Read the link if you care to become informed.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I suspect that this isn't just about the suitability of words. Maybe it's more a disagreement with the philosophy itself. But disagreement doesn't indicate ignorance.

If it is just about words, it seems to me it isn't over the suitability of "initiation", but "force".

Initiation=who started it
Force=the act itself

Is the act itself murder, or is murder just the result of the act? I think it's splitting hairs, but how you that question determines how you assess the suitability.

Different people may disagree but the disagreement doesn't have to be disagreeable especially when splitting hairs.

 

[steveh_131]

Are you trying to convince me that the premeditated act of killing another person does not qualify as an 'initiation of force' under the NAP?

Or are you trying to make some inane distinction between the death of the person and the acts that caused it? As in, hitting someone in the head with a baseball bat is an initiation of force, not the fact that they died from it?

 

[Ted]

Are you trying to convince me that the premeditated act of killing another person does not qualify as an 'initiation of force' under the NAP?

Or are you trying to make some inane distinction between the death of the person and the acts that caused it? As in, hitting someone in the head with a baseball bat is an initiation of force, not the fact that they died from it?

No, I'm debating the use of the word "initiation" in your argument, and Jamil stated it as well, 2 posts up.

Murder is not initiating anything. It is the end result of the initial attack.

 

[steveh_131]

Is the act itself murder, or is murder just the result of the act? I think it's splitting hairs, but how you that question determines how you assess the suitability.

Different people may disagree but the disagreement doesn't have to be disagreeable especially when splitting hairs.

Physically attacking a person is an assault.
Physically attacking a person in a way that ultimately results in their death is murder.

Both are an initiation of force.

This has gone beyond splitting hairs into rampant stupidity. I suspect that Ted had a fundamental misunderstanding of the entire concept, and is now splitting hairs in the hopes of not looking stupid now that he has been corrected.

Whichever the case, I regret engaging him in this discussion and am now finished.

 

[steveh_131]

No, I'm debating the use of the word "initiation" in your argument, and Jamil stated it as well, 2 posts up.

Murder is not initiating anything. It is the end result of the initial attack.

 

[Ted]

Physically attacking a person is an assault.
Physically attacking a person in a way that ultimately results in their death is murder.

Both are an initiation of force.

This has gone beyond splitting hairs into rampant stupidity. I suspect that Ted had a fundamental misunderstanding of the entire concept, and is now splitting hairs in the hopes of not looking stupid now that he has been corrected.

Whichever the case, I regret engaging him in this discussion and am now finished.

• Physically attacking a person, in Indiana, is battery.
• Threatening to attack a person, in Indiana, is intimidation.
• Threatening to attack a person in many other jurisdictions, is assault.
• Physically attacking a person in a way that ultimately results in their death is murder, if other criteria are met. Your statement, in itself, is not complete.

Thus the initiation of force for battery, is that of intimidation.

Look at the word "initiation" in the dictionary, it is the derivative of the word, "initial". The fact that I am arguing with your definition of such isn't splitting hairs, as much as your revisionist approach to definitions is one of the problems plaguing this country.

If you don't believe me, please tell me how the term "assault rifle" has now begun to be defined as any rifle under the sun? Or how "social justice", "Pay your fair share", and "equality", are now just other terms for socialistic approaches to redistribution?