wdg3rd on June 03, 2012, 05:59:04 pm
even anarcho-capitalists can be hypocrites.
What, you mean that derision doesn't violate the ZAP?

It's not clear to me that this is obvious. After all, making fun of someone can adversely affect other people's attitudes to him.

Free speech means you're allowed to tell the truth about people, subject to privacy limitations. But mockery and other forms of speech with emotive effect may be legitimately categorized as action.

Nope.  Calling someone a motherfucker, whether or not he had a mother or if he fucked her is not an initiation of force.
Ward Griffiths        wdg3rd@aol.com

Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.  --  Denis Diderot

SandySandfort on June 03, 2012, 06:45:31 pm
Nope.  Calling someone a motherfracker, whether or not he had a mother or if he fracked her is not an initiation of force.

Nor is it the threat of force, nor--true or not--is it fraud.

(Now is when all the "sea lawyers"--libertarians and otherwise--come out of the woodwork to claim that telling a lie is "fraud." Maybe yes, usually no. Please look it up, before you post.)

sam on June 03, 2012, 06:59:34 pm
[quote What, you mean that derision doesn't violate the ZAP?

No, it does not. Stating your opinion of someone, no matter how vitriolic, is not acting, nor can it be considered an attack unless it's an outright lie.

What about veiled threats?  How veiled does a threat have to be before it becomes wrong to eliminate the guy who made it?

Is putting your hand on someone's face and pushing hard assault?

If so, is putting your hand on someone's face and pushing slowly assault?

If so, is waving your fist inches from the other guys nose assault or the threat of assault?

If so, is putting your face a couple of inches from the other guys face and yelling that his mother was a whore assault or the threat of assault?

If so ...

You cannot draw a sharp line.  In general, words from a long distance away seldom justify violence, but words from close at hand can, and frequently do, justify violence.

But some words from far away clearly do justify violence, as when someone who is in a position to make bad things happen to you, suggests that if he does not get what he wants, some bad thing might regrettably happen to you.

« Last Edit: June 03, 2012, 07:08:30 pm by sam »

mellyrn on June 03, 2012, 07:13:47 pm
The efficacy of physical self-defense depends on the relative power of you and your attacker.

The efficacy of emotional self-defense, otoh, is entirely up to the defender.  No one can hurt you emotionally without your participation.  It's true that you might not know how to defend yourself emotionally, but it can be learned.  It's that participatory aspect that says derision does not violate the ZAP.

myrkul999 on June 03, 2012, 07:36:43 pm
For convenience, My answers will be in-line, in bold.

What about veiled threats?  How veiled does a threat have to be before it becomes wrong to eliminate the guy who made it?

A threat is a violation of ZAP. Veiled threats are reason to boost security, but unless he comes out and says it, you can't really act on it.

Is putting your hand on someone's face and pushing hard assault?

To be sure. That's why I don't do that except in defense.

If so, is putting your hand on someone's face and pushing slowly assault?

This one is pushing it, but again, A-OK in defense.

If so, is waving your fist inches from the other guys nose assault or the threat of assault?

I would say it's certainly at least an implied threat of assault.

If so, is putting your face a couple of inches from the other guys face and yelling that his mother was a whore assault or the threat of assault?

Nope. It's rude, and distasteful, but not assault, nor threat of assault.

If so ...

You cannot draw a sharp line. 

I think I did, chief.

« Last Edit: June 03, 2012, 07:43:37 pm by myrkul999 »

wdg3rd on June 03, 2012, 08:39:35 pm
[quote What, you mean that derision doesn't violate the ZAP?

No, it does not. Stating your opinion of someone, no matter how vitriolic, is not acting, nor can it be considered an attack unless it's an outright lie.

What about veiled threats?  How veiled does a threat have to be before it becomes wrong to eliminate the guy who made it?

Is putting your hand on someone's face and pushing hard assault?

If so, is putting your hand on someone's face and pushing slowly assault?

If so, is waving your fist inches from the other guys nose assault or the threat of assault?

If so, is putting your face a couple of inches from the other guys face and yelling that his mother was a whore assault or the threat of assault?

If so ...

You cannot draw a sharp line.  In general, words from a long distance away seldom justify violence, but words from close at hand can, and frequently do, justify violence.

But some words from far away clearly do justify violence, as when someone who is in a position to make bad things happen to you, suggests that if he does not get what he wants, some bad thing might regrettably happen to you.



If he's touching my face without my permission I'll take his hand off at the wrist.  If I get sloppy and take his head off, I'm willing to take things to adjudication as to whether I got too sloppy.  I'll pay weregild if he hds people who stupidly depended on him.
Ward Griffiths        wdg3rd@aol.com

Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.  --  Denis Diderot

Killydd on June 03, 2012, 10:08:50 pm
Legally, the yelling an inch from your face does constitute assault.  Battery is the crime when someone actually hits you, but assault does apply if a rational person would feel threatened by the actions.  It may be a lesser crime than, for example, holding a deadly weapon while doing the same, but if there is little doubt that the offender wishes to cause physical harm and is only looking for an excuse, then it is an assault. 

SandySandfort on June 03, 2012, 10:10:36 pm
If he's touching my face without my permission I'll take his hand off at the wrist.  If I get sloppy and take his head off, I'm willing to take things to adjudication as to whether I got too sloppy.  I'll pay weregild if he hds people who stupidly depended on him.

Again, sea lawyers (not you, wdg3rd), love these supposed edge cases. They think that they can refute a principle with lifeboat scenarios. In the instant case, there is a difference between, "I can touch your face and there is nothing you can do about it," and "Wdg3rd, there's a scorpion on your face. Hold still while I knock it off."

This is where the "reasonable person" test comes into play. (It used to be called the "reasonable man" test, but now everyone except Sam uses the non-sexist term.) In the real world, actions have contexts: personal, social, circumstantial, etc. The sophists always ask their edge questions without context. Give us a face-touching-context and I think most of us will know what is reasonable and what is not. Of course, the sophists continue to split hairs ever finer into more and more unlikely hypotheticals, but the rest of us live in reality.

SandySandfort on June 03, 2012, 10:22:29 pm
Legally, the yelling an inch from your face does constitute assault.  Battery is the crime when someone actually hits you, but assault does apply if a rational person would feel threatened by the actions.  It may be a lesser crime than, for example, holding a deadly weapon while doing the same, but if there is little doubt that the offender wishes to cause physical harm and is only looking for an excuse, then it is an assault. 

Not correct. Without getting into the distinction between common law assault and battery and statutory assault and battery (which varies between jurisdictions), it is really quite simple. Battery is physical violence (actually, more precisely an "unwanted touching"). Assault is the threat of a battery. (No need to guess, people; these things are on the internet. So if I wave my claymore at you in a credibly threatening manner, that's an assault.) If I stick you with it, that's a battery.

Killydd on June 03, 2012, 10:45:10 pm
Two points of contention here, Sandy.  First, that the "weapon" in question may be nothing more than your fists.  The second is that what I wished to do is draw the distinction between heated debate(including vitriolic insults) and a person getting in your face, making intimidating remarks and actions, but wanting to say "but he hit me first" when arbitration over an eventual fight breaks out.  That is, the threat of battery can be primarily verbal, although I will agree usually supported by a physical action to increase the threat.

ContraryGuy on June 04, 2012, 01:09:04 am
It's like the freed slave condition; sometimes the slave would rebel against freedom, unable to accept the change in paradigm.
Again, I think that not wanting to pay taxes is a piss-poor main reason to join an anarchy.

Well, Scott Pilgrim does have charisma.  havent you seen the movie?

In every maturing society, complacency sets in.  The longer people go being comfortable, the less they have to worry about. 
But, because people are constantly bombarded by messages telling they should be worrying, the smaller and pettier stuff they look around to worry about.

When you combine this with the generally enforced ignorance, you the "mascons".  They had to have something to bitch about(because life is just far too comfortable to be happy), so they hit on the oldest canard in history:  My Taxes Are Too High.

So, Pilgrim tells them "how would you like to live in absolute tax-free freedom?"  Since they are riled up up, naturally they say  yes.

It may have been a piss poor reason, but, like so many things, the decision to sell everything, mortgage your life and give up every thing you've known for an uncertain future, is not a rational decision.
It is not based on reasoned thought, but on emotion.  If the person carries through far enough while irrational, the decision gains enough inertia that it becomes mores difficult to stop than to carry through with it, to whatever end may come.


SandySandfort on June 04, 2012, 05:34:48 am
Two points of contention here, Sandy.  First, that the "weapon" in question may be nothing more than your fists.  The second is that what I wished to do is draw the distinction between heated debate(including vitriolic insults) and a person getting in your face, making intimidating remarks and actions, but wanting to say "but he hit me first" when arbitration over an eventual fight breaks out.  That is, the threat of battery can be primarily verbal, although I will agree usually supported by a physical action to increase the threat.

Here's how it works. Under the Common Law, various crimes, torts, etc. are defined by "elements." This is just "black-letter law" that guides the trier of fact, in determining if parties have acted reasonably (i.e., "reasonable person" test). Here is a good explanation of the elements necessary to constitute an assault:

http://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and-personal-injuries/elements-of-assault.html

As indicated above, these elements and their interpretations, are guidelines. People can get it wrong; just as with any system of conflict resolution. However, the underlying principle applies irrespective of whether or not it was properly applied in a given context.

Azure Priest on June 04, 2012, 07:24:52 am
Well, now we've got Pilgrim's followers who fled an oppressive government looking to establish the self same policies they fled from.

As for the yelling two inches from your face.

That in and of itself can be both assault AND battery. In Florida within the last week, a man LITERALLY ate another man's face.

He refused to obey the orders of the police who were coming to the aid of the victim and had to be shot to death.

(Of note, a blood test showed the attacker had a rather large amount of those drugs that there is a war on. Not so silly a concept any more is it?)

Killydd on June 04, 2012, 11:10:02 am
(Of note, a blood test showed the attacker had a rather large amount of those drugs that there is a war on. Not so silly a concept any more is it?)
Quite silly when you consider the number of crimes perpetrated by consumers of alcohol.  Most opponents to the war on drugs think that drugs should be legal, but you should be culpable for your actions at all times.  Which pretty much comes down to the personal responsibility that many on here promote.  Then there's the other group that merely wishes to add more drugs to the list of "harmless enough to be socially and legally acceptable."

macsnafu on June 04, 2012, 11:47:31 am
Well, now we've got Pilgrim's followers who fled an oppressive government looking to establish the self same policies they fled from.

As for the yelling two inches from your face.

That in and of itself can be both assault AND battery. In Florida within the last week, a man LITERALLY ate another man's face.

He refused to obey the orders of the police who were coming to the aid of the victim and had to be shot to death.

(Of note, a blood test showed the attacker had a rather large amount of those drugs that there is a war on. Not so silly a concept any more is it?)

So one person took bath salts and started chewing on a person's face.  Are we to merely assume that the bath salts is what caused it?  How many other people have taken bath salts and done something as gruesome or lethal as this? Perhaps he was already a deranged person obsessed with the zombie apocalype, and THEN he took the bath salts. 

Yes, outlawing bath salts is still silly--outlawing face-eating is silly, too, because it already constitutes an attack, and thus a crime. 

But hey, how many cases are there of somebody shooting somebody else after drinking some beers--obviously, we should outlaw beer!  Or people shooting other people in cases of road rage--does that mean we should outlaw cars, or just the roads themselves?



I love mankind.  It's PEOPLE I can't stand!  - Linus Van Pelt.