Quote from: RationalSpeculator on October 23, 2013, 10:07:14 PM

Quote from: Anon136 on October 23, 2013, 08:58:16 PM

Quote from: RationalSpeculator on October 23, 2013, 07:25:12 PM

Quote from: Anon136 on October 23, 2013, 07:02:09 PM

Ok so i want to understand your position. Is it a matter of principle that it is never ok to use violence against someone for committing fraud? For example is it immoral to use threats of force to seek restitution for acts of fraud committed against you?

Thanks for your curiosity.

Yes, if your sister steals your toy, you can't start hitting her. You can steal it back though.

It's a principle indeed, fairness. Leveling up violence is not fair. Initiating the use of violence is immoral. The moment we accept this we will get a better world, and you also get a better life if you accept this. Don't hit your fellow man, don't hit your children, you will be happier.

Threats of violence I'm not sure about as it is not violence but words. I think it is not immoral but it certainly is a warning that this person could be immoral.

What do you think?

Ps: Sorry moderator for the offtopic split you had to do.

i think that's your opinion and you are welcome to it. i feel differently but my idea of morality is based on intuition so i really dont know how to make arguments about what is moral and what isn't. my intuition tells me that fraud is immoral and that people who are defrauded are owed restitution. but again if you say that this is wrong i dont really know how to use rational arguments to prove that it isnt.

over all i like your value system not as much as i like my own (obviously) but MUCH more than i like most peoples. if it were widely practiced it would probably lead to results that i would find much preferable to the society i live in today.

I got this from the 'non aggression principle'.

Yeah today there is no morality. Also in West it's men with the guns make the rules while they are excluded. They steal (tax), couterfit (print), kidnap (arrest) as they please.

Next evolution of mankind is no rulers but fair moral agrrements and those that break it get ostracized. That's how I solve personal problems now. Instead of abusing people back that abuse me, I kick them out of my life. Problem solved.

Yes this is what i see as the difference between voluntaryists and more general anarcho-capitalists. you being the former myself being the latter.

either way i would love to hear a rational proof for the non-aggression principal if you have one. i tend to consider it as more of a rule of thumb than a universal law.