Quote from: malevolent on October 02, 2013, 09:02:05 PM

Quote from: EhVedadoOAnonimato on October 02, 2013, 08:46:59 PM

Quote from: malevolent on October 02, 2013, 08:22:12 PM

I think it's too early to speculate but a lot more was at stake. If the blackmailer had released compromising information about SR users this could result in a lot more broken families.
It seems to me that as a libertarian, DPR was acting within the non-agression principle.

No way. Seriously, that should be a no brainer. Blackmailing isn't an aggression, so no use of force against a blackmailer is acceptable. Just study ethics before saying such things. Here, start with Walter Block: https://mises.org/daily/4576

If after the revelation of such secrets, bad things happen, that's not the direct action of the blackmailer, but of those who took the bad actions (the government, in this case). The blackmailer isn't violating anybody's rights. You have no "right to keep secrets". Having a "right to keep secrets" implies in having the "right to censor", by the way.

Thanks, you may have a point, I'll have a read of that link.

Oh, great. So if an article on mises.org says that blackmailing IS aggression because its against your property, then murdering is OK. If on the contrary it says that blackmailing is not an aggression by itself, then murdering is not OK.

Mind-blowing indeed. Some of you love a tad too much your books, there is people that adores their constitution (or their favorite Rothbard book) just like Muslims blindly adore their Coran or Christians their Bible.