Boo Radley
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 37,066
- Reaction score
- 7,028
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Hmm. So someone comes to you and issues you the edict that you must interact with a particular person. You refuse. So he comes back and says that because you disobeyed him he requires that you give him some of your money. Again you refuse. This time he comes back armed, seizes you, and puts you in a cage.
You don't consider this forceful action intended to master you to be aggression?
You don't consider this attack upon you to be aggression?
But I see that you don't wish to use the term "aggression". I suppose we can work around that restriction. I'll simply say that libertarians hold that every person, apart from being the sole owner of his physical body, has the right to employ his private property in any way he sees fit so long as in so doing he does not uninvitedly change the physical integrity of another person's body or property. All interpersonal exchanges and all exchanges of property titles between private owners are to be voluntary. One person forcing another to interact with others would violate this principle, which is why libertarians oppose this.
No, that's law enforcement dealing with a law breaker. Quite a different situation. It is how all who break he law should be treated. Again, there is a clear history of why we have this law.