rwsh@hound.UUCP (R.STUBBLEFIELD) (11/21/85)
Retaliation In response to my claim that force is anti-reason someone gives the following example: "A thug attempts to rob me with a knife. I happen to be holding a pistol. A reasonable response on my part would be to show him my pistol, `reasonable force.' If he ignores the reality of the situation and presses the attack, a reasonable response would be to shoot him." If this example is supposed to be an exception to the principle that force is anti-reason, I disagree. If the example is supposed to indicate that a better formulation of the principle would facilitate understanding, I agree. The initiation of force and the retaliation with force name two different classes of things in reality. What they have in common is the use of physical means in dealing with other members of the human race. The initiator says, "Your understanding of reality--your humanity--is of no consequence to me. Do what I want. I've got the knife. Might makes right." The retaliator says, "Since you have dispensed with reason--your potential humanity, I must treat you as I treat other inhuman threats to my existence, such as mad dogs or falling trees; i.e., by physical means. Without the right physical means to defend or retreat, I will obey. But it so happens that I've got a gun. On the off-chance that there is some humanity--reason--left in you, I want to let you know I am prepared to use it." The knife-wielder rushes.... "Boom." In a deep sense, the retaliator did not use physical means to deal with another *human* because that other entity threw away his humanity. It is this distinction between physical means to deal with humans and physical means to deal with the rest of the universe that I have in my mind when I use the words "force is anti-reason." Given the common usage of the language, a more precise formulation of the principle is, "the *initiation* of force is the opposite of reason." -- Bob Stubblefield ihnp4!hound!rwsh 201-949-2846