Non-Aggression Principle Explained

At 6/2/2011 1:01:12 AM, jharry wrote:
What do you call this?

Woman is being beat by drunk boyfriend.

Woman calls police.

Police arrive.

Drunk boyfriend attempts to attack cops.

Cops defend themselves and remove man from home.

Is this violating the non-aggression principle?

At 6/2/2011 1:04:22 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:

At 6/2/2011 1:01:12 AM, jharry wrote:
What do you call this?

Woman is being beat by drunk boyfriend.

Woman calls police.

Police arrive.

Drunk boyfriend attempts to attack cops.

Cops defend themselves and remove man from home.

Is this violating the non-aggression principle?

Is who violating the non-aggression principle? The boyfriend is, the cops aren't--the boyfriend started the violence, the cop just responded to it, which isn't aggression.

At 6/2/2011 1:06:33 AM, jharry wrote:

At 6/2/2011 1:04:22 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:

At 6/2/2011 1:01:12 AM, jharry wrote:
What do you call this?

Woman is being beat by drunk boyfriend.

Woman calls police.

Police arrive.

Drunk boyfriend attempts to attack cops.

Cops defend themselves and remove man from home.

Is this violating the non-aggression principle?

Is who violating the non-aggression principle? The boyfriend is, the cops aren't--the boyfriend started the violence, the cop just responded to it, which isn't aggression.

The video seemed to suggest that police in general start the violence.

Would this video fall under the fraud label addressed in this video?

At 6/2/2011 1:06:33 AM, jharry wrote:

At 6/2/2011 1:04:22 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:

At 6/2/2011 1:01:12 AM, jharry wrote:
What do you call this?

Woman is being beat by drunk boyfriend.

Woman calls police.

Police arrive.

Drunk boyfriend attempts to attack cops.

Cops defend themselves and remove man from home.

Is this violating the non-aggression principle?

Is who violating the non-aggression principle? The boyfriend is, the cops aren't--the boyfriend started the violence, the cop just responded to it, which isn't aggression.

The video seemed to suggest that police in general start the violence.

Would this video fall under the fraud label addressed in this video?

At 6/2/2011 1:15:26 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

At 6/2/2011 1:06:33 AM, jharry wrote:

At 6/2/2011 1:04:22 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:

At 6/2/2011 1:01:12 AM, jharry wrote:
What do you call this?

Woman is being beat by drunk boyfriend.

Woman calls police.

Police arrive.

Drunk boyfriend attempts to attack cops.

Cops defend themselves and remove man from home.

Is this violating the non-aggression principle?

Is who violating the non-aggression principle? The boyfriend is, the cops aren't--the boyfriend started the violence, the cop just responded to it, which isn't aggression.

The video seemed to suggest that police in general start the violence.

The video authors are ancaps, but there is exactly one police officer in the video. If I depict rape does that imply all men are rapists?

Would this video fall under the fraud label addressed in this video?

Seeming to suggest something isn't fraud even by the fairly loose standards of fraud the authors of video seem to have-- which I questioned them on in the comments for the video.

Couldn't the non-aggression principle be taught without the use of the cop?

At 6/2/2011 1:16:10 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:

At 6/2/2011 1:06:33 AM, jharry wrote:

At 6/2/2011 1:04:22 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:

At 6/2/2011 1:01:12 AM, jharry wrote:
What do you call this?

Woman is being beat by drunk boyfriend.

Woman calls police.

Police arrive.

Drunk boyfriend attempts to attack cops.

Cops defend themselves and remove man from home.

Is this violating the non-aggression principle?

Is who violating the non-aggression principle? The boyfriend is, the cops aren't--the boyfriend started the violence, the cop just responded to it, which isn't aggression.

The video seemed to suggest that police in general start the violence.

They do, in general. Not always though--and the situation you describe would be one of the situations where they aren't the aggressors.

Would this video fall under the fraud label addressed in this video?

No. But even if they were lying about something, it still wouldn't. Just lying isn't fraud--you have to use deceit to take someone's property or hurt their person. Like, if I sold you a car, but I lied and said it worked when it didn't, that would be fraud, because I got your money by lying about what our exchange really was. If I just lied to you about something, but didn't get any of your property out of it, it wouldn't be fraud.

At 6/2/2011 1:27:58 AM, jharry wrote:
It is misleading. The video would have me think that I should be worried about being assaulted by cops. It could have taught the non-aggression principle without the use of the cop.

At 6/2/2011 1:25:27 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

Couldn't the non-aggression principle be taught without the use of the cop?

Could? Sure. Should? Why?

At 6/2/2011 1:30:02 AM, tvellalott wrote:

At 6/2/2011 1:27:58 AM, jharry wrote:
It is misleading. The video would have me think that I should be worried about being assaulted by cops. It could have taught the non-aggression principle without the use of the cop.

You should be worried about being assaulted by the cops.

At 6/2/2011 1:35:57 AM, jharry wrote:

At 6/2/2011 1:30:02 AM, tvellalott wrote:

At 6/2/2011 1:27:58 AM, jharry wrote:
It is misleading. The video would have me think that I should be worried about being assaulted by cops. It could have taught the non-aggression principle without the use of the cop.

You should be worried about being assaulted by the cops.

Please tell me why.

At 6/2/2011 1:54:11 AM, tvellalott wrote:

At 6/2/2011 1:35:57 AM, jharry wrote:

At 6/2/2011 1:30:02 AM, tvellalott wrote:

At 6/2/2011 1:27:58 AM, jharry wrote:
It is misleading. The video would have me think that I should be worried about being assaulted by cops. It could have taught the non-aggression principle without the use of the cop.

You should be worried about being assaulted by the cops.

Please tell me why.

Coz. :D
Probably not you specifically, but given the undeniable fallibility of the police is very concerning. This story comes to mind; this is a place I spent a lot of time at as a youngster...
http://www.theage.com.au...

And that wasn't the purpose of the video. It attempts to sell an idea that seems great, and non-aggression is great, but by adding the cop it falsely portrays cops as being the aggressor when in reality humans are the aggressors.

I would be willing to bet a dollar to a donut that they would get the impression that cops are the aggressors.

At 6/2/2011 2:12:25 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

And that wasn't the purpose of the video. It attempts to sell an idea that seems great, and non-aggression is great, but by adding the cop it falsely portrays cops as being the aggressor when in reality humans are the aggressors.

Irrelevant conclusion. Cops are humans after all.

I would be willing to bet a dollar to a donut that they would get the impression that cops are the aggressors.

This cop is.
In other media cops are frequently portrayed as retaliators, do you b**** about it then?

The point of the video is well served by using government officials. It is, you see, a libertarian video, and people need to be reminded that government violence is violence too. A government, after all, is so well established as a monopoly on violence that people don't really think about it. Do they call the prison warden a slavedriver? No, but that's what he is, for good or ill. In the event the prisoner is guilty of violating a serious and just law I'm perfectly fine with him being a slave, but that's no reason to evade the fact of his slavery.

I would be willing to bet a dollar to a donut that they would get the impression that cops are the aggressors.

This cop is.
In other media cops are frequently portrayed as retaliators, do you b**** about it then?

I don't understand the question.

You dropped who was watching the video. The video portrays cops as the aggressors. If a child watched this she would think all coos are the aggressors.

The point of the video is well served by using government officials. It is, you see, a libertarian video, and people need to be reminded that government violence is violence too. A government, after all, is so well established as a monopoly on violence that people don't really think about it. Do they call the prison warden a slavedriver? No, but that's what he is, for good or ill. In the event the prisoner is guilty of violating a serious and just law I'm perfectly fine with him being a slave, but that's no reason to evade the fact of his slavery.

So you concerned if the are called something or not? Is that it? Would there be no prisons in R_R land?

At 6/2/2011 2:33:40 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

I would be willing to bet a dollar to a donut that they would get the impression that cops are the aggressors.

This cop is.
In other media cops are frequently portrayed as retaliators, do you b**** about it then?

I don't understand the question.

Why do cops get a special pass from those of their number being portrayed as aggressors, especially when due to their jobs they are involved in aggression must more often than normal people?

You dropped who was watching the video. The video portrays cops as the aggressors. If a child watched this she would think all coos are the aggressors.

If a child watched police produced videos she would think "Jharry is on the internet, therefore Jharry wants to bad touch me."

The point of the video is well served by using government officials. It is, you see, a libertarian video, and people need to be reminded that government violence is violence too. A government, after all, is so well established as a monopoly on violence that people don't really think about it. Do they call the prison warden a slavedriver? No, but that's what he is, for good or ill. In the event the prisoner is guilty of violating a serious and just law I'm perfectly fine with him being a slave, but that's no reason to evade the fact of his slavery.

So you concerned if the are called something or not? Is that it? Would there be no prisons in R_R land?

I'm not an ancap. Of course, there would be fewer prisons due to lack of drug laws, but there would be prisons.

At 6/2/2011 2:43:13 AM, jharry wrote:

At 6/2/2011 2:33:40 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

I would be willing to bet a dollar to a donut that they would get the impression that cops are the aggressors.

This cop is.
In other media cops are frequently portrayed as retaliators, do you b**** about it then?

I don't understand the question.

Why do cops get a special pass from those of their number being portrayed as aggressors, especially when due to their jobs they are involved in aggression must more often than normal people?

That is there job.

Why would a security officer or what ever get a pass.

Like the story tv gave me. I wasn't there so it's hard to comment. But I can tell you this. My son doesn't skate, but if he did and a kid started threating my son with a knife I would intervene. If the kid came at me with a knife he would catch three in the chest if I had to and I had the chance. Should I let the kid kill me? And then maybe my son? And yours?

That is there job to step in harms way if I'm not there, or your not. Yes there are bad cops. And they are punished by the same laws they swore to uphold.

You dropped who was watching the video. The video portrays cops as the aggressors. If a child watched this she would think all coos are the aggressors.

If a child watched police produced videos she would think "Jharry is on the internet, therefore Jharry wants to bad touch me."

Lol. It's ok if you have no relevant response. This video is propaganda intended to fraud the viewer into believing something that isn't true.

So they would still be slave drivers in R_R prisons? So what is your point?