Daily Anarchist Forum
September 23, 2021, 12:54:00 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to the Daily Anarchist Forum!
 
   Home   Help Search Members Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3
  Print  
Author Topic: What about acts that predict/cause violence  (Read 13048 times)
assasin7
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 516


View Profile
« on: June 24, 2012, 03:22:27 PM »

I know people who when they get drunk become violent, since their drinking is very likely to cause violence, do I have a right to stop them from drinking? What about someone who is acting in a aggressive but not violent manner (say staggering around and screaming in an insane manner), can I attack him?

Also what about punching assholes, is that OK?
Logged

"owning a fire arm, that's a hanging offense"
"then go hang yourself"
LegesNullae
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 66


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: June 24, 2012, 03:37:59 PM »

I would say that a possibility of violence isn't enough to call for preemptive violence. If the person has expressed intent to do violence, that may be a different story. (Plus, lots of intoxicated people are nonviolent anyway.) As for a person acting irrationally, I'd say take measures to calm them down or at least get them to leave without just going ahead and beating them up.

As for assholes, punching them would feel lovely, but I think the most you could ethically do is be an asshole back to them to discourage rude behavior. Yay for social ostracism?
Logged

"It is easy to be conspicuously 'compassionate' if others are being forced to pay the cost." -Murray N. Rothbard
Seth King
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
*****
Posts: 3211



View Profile WWW
« Reply #2 on: June 24, 2012, 03:48:56 PM »

It depends on where they are.

If they're in your bar, you can absolutely refuse to sell them alcohol.

If they're at their own house, there's little you can do, unless they've signed some sort of voluntary zoning agreement with their neighbors.
Logged

When are you moving to New Hampshire?
MAM
Guest
« Reply #3 on: June 24, 2012, 04:53:43 PM »

If people being assholes or belligerent while not actually attacking others is enough to violate the nap when do we draw the line?
Logged
ff42
Full Member
***
Posts: 186


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: June 24, 2012, 05:11:29 PM »

I know it is subjective, but your/my actions would probably have to pass a 'reasonable person' test, which is dependent on society, your insurance company, DRO, etc.

Logged
Syock
Epic
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2427


Existing Beyond Time


View Profile WWW
« Reply #5 on: July 01, 2012, 12:26:26 PM »

Also what about punching assholes, is that OK?

If we all went around punching assholes, there would be a lot of happy dentists, or proctologists, or something. 
Logged

Disengage
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 331


View Profile WWW
« Reply #6 on: July 01, 2012, 08:35:13 PM »

Nope.

Violence should be dealt with when it occurs.    Steps that historically lead to violence, such as a person who typically becomes violent when drunk, serve as a convenient warning that something is about to go down.   You can not use them to justify retaliatory or preventative violence as if the violent act had already occurred.   You CAN use them to justify getting the hell out of the room, which should be your first course of action anyway.     You should not initiate force to stop someone from drinking even if you know with 100% certainty that he's going to go bonkers and try to kick every ass in the room.    I'm not saying that I'd never do it under any circumstance... only that I'd be wrong for doing so, and should expect some sort of consequences.

Logged



assasin7
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 516


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: July 05, 2012, 03:47:20 PM »

Nope.

Violence should be dealt with when it occurs.    Steps that historically lead to violence, such as a person who typically becomes violent when drunk, serve as a convenient warning that something is about to go down.   You can not use them to justify retaliatory or preventative violence as if the violent act had already occurred.   You CAN use them to justify getting the hell out of the room, which should be your first course of action anyway.     You should not initiate force to stop someone from drinking even if you know with 100% certainty that he's going to go bonkers and try to kick every ass in the room.    I'm not saying that I'd never do it under any circumstance... only that I'd be wrong for doing so, and should expect some sort of consequences.



what about taking keys from a drunk guy and giving them back when hes sober? If I had AIDS and had sex with someone would that be violence?
Logged

"owning a fire arm, that's a hanging offense"
"then go hang yourself"
BobRobertson
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 495



View Profile
« Reply #8 on: July 06, 2012, 10:02:19 AM »

what about taking keys from a drunk guy and giving them back when hes sober?

Didn't "Minority Report" make sense to you? It's not an act of violence until the act of violence happens. Taking the keys of a potential drunk is theft.

However, that is also why there are courts. If you have prove to an adjudicator that you had a demonstrable reason to take the person's keys, such as a history of harming people by driving drunk, then just like using violence to stop someone who is already taking a swing at you, you will be adjudicated as justified in your use of violence.

This is a common error amongst people new to a voluntary society, forgetting that it's a society. There are social standards ("rules") as well as institutions such as courts to deal with non-emergency situations. Just like now.

Use them.

Quote
If I had AIDS and had sex with someone would that be violence?

Just like if someone agreed to your pointing a gun at them, but not to your shooting them.

That is, if you didn't take reasonable care. That "social standard" again. No action happens in complete isolation, a voluntary society is still a society. Please consider this fact some more.
Logged
Hanzo
Full Member
***
Posts: 241


Deprived Ninja


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: July 06, 2012, 11:43:56 AM »



what about taking keys from a drunk guy and giving them back when hes sober? If I had AIDS and had sex with someone would that be violence?
It is not a crime if the drunk guy does not press charges afterwards. Not sure about the aids. If you specifically lied and said you were clean, maybe.
Logged

What if it was a gift?
BobRobertson
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 495



View Profile
« Reply #10 on: July 06, 2012, 12:01:24 PM »

If you specifically lied and said you were clean, maybe.

Fraud.
Logged
JustSayNoToStatism
Daily Anarchist Crew
Hero Member
****
*****
Posts: 1747


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: July 06, 2012, 12:26:43 PM »

The whole "isn't violence until it's done" argument is actually pretty weak. Friedman gave some really good examples in "Machinery of Freedom." Suppose I decide to play Russian Roulette, except with your body instead of mine. Technically, aiming the gun at you and pulling the trigger isn't violence 5/6 of the time, but you'd probably still take issue with me aiming it your way.

Now imagine a gun that has 1,000 chambers, and doing the same thing. Is that okay? How about a million? How is the million chambered gun any different from driving a car, or flying an airplane, where you put other people at risk without their consent?
Logged

"I like to eat. Instead of a monarch I propose we have a Chef be final arbiter in matters. We'll call it anarcho-chefism."
-MAM
BobRobertson
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 495



View Profile
« Reply #12 on: July 06, 2012, 12:53:54 PM »

The whole "isn't violence until it's done" argument is actually pretty weak.
...
How is the million chambered gun any different from driving a car, or flying an airplane, where you put other people at risk without their consent?

Social standard. It is already accepted that someone driving a car has not "threatened" anyone until or unless they actually commit a negligent act, or act so far outside of the accepted norms that we already call it "reckless endangerment".

Again, this discussion makes no sense until people realize that an entirely voluntary society is still a society.
Logged
JustSayNoToStatism
Daily Anarchist Crew
Hero Member
****
*****
Posts: 1747


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: July 06, 2012, 01:03:28 PM »

Social standard. It is already accepted that someone driving a car has not "threatened" anyone until or unless they actually commit a negligent act, or act so far outside of the accepted norms that we already call it "reckless endangerment".
^That's the answer I would give, but it's a cop out for anyone who believes in magical libertarian ethics or something like that. Practically speaking, however, it's right (and that's the answer I'm interested in).
Logged

"I like to eat. Instead of a monarch I propose we have a Chef be final arbiter in matters. We'll call it anarcho-chefism."
-MAM
BobRobertson
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 495



View Profile
« Reply #14 on: July 06, 2012, 01:36:36 PM »

but it's a cop out for anyone who believes in magical libertarian ethics or something like that.

The real frustration comes from people trying desperately to disprove "magical libertarian ethics" and thereby demonstrate the necessity of a coercive state.

They demand that Lifeboat Scenarios be solved to their satisfaction each and every time, in isolation, or somehow "magical libertarian ethics" are invalid. The old Mike Huben "Critiques of Libertarianism" is like that, straw-man after straw-man disproven year after year, and yet somehow he considers himself the winner.

I wrote to him a couple years ago, to say I was impressed that he left that disgrace online for people to read. He said he was proud of it. Oh well. Reading that I wouldn't hire him to clean toilets.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!