>>11536>My goal in defining rights as I do is to produce maximum stable liberty.
How do we define stable liberty here?
I certainly do not see the current state of the US as a particularly desirable item, in respect to rights, for example.
Is this a system by which we must constantly compromise, trade away rights to a certain point, and then resist, for the higher 'stability'?> In the overwhelming majority of cases, unless the resisting of arrest also poses a threat to the life of the officers or those around them, a shooting will not occur (despite the rare occurrences that make headlines).
Sure, often enough, people don't bother to take the means to defend themselves into their own hands, and go out unprepared.
But if they have the means to defend themselves, the police are not going to say "Well, it's just a traffic ticket, so we just won't arrest this guy".
That's not how the state operates.
I don't particularly consider violence used to force a kidnapping and imprisonment overly better, morally speaking, besides.
Personally, I quite well consider death far preferable to slavery.>until death and violence is already an inevitable threat from the resistor.
Yes, which is my point.
I suppose this goes back to an earlier item, but I do not consider shooting a mugger morally wrong.
If someone's trying to beat and kidnap you, you did not initiate the violence.
It's not something you bear any moral responsibility for.>I do not believe that it is inconsistent with the enforcement, since most enforcement isn't backed by violence except in already potentially violent circumstances.
Again, it objectively is.
I understand you regard a mugging as not violence, but even in such a situation, that is only non-violent if you give up your money
If you do not, violence is used.
If the state issues you a 200$ fine, and you refuse to pay it, police will be sent to arrest you.
If you refuse to comply with their demands, they will use violence to subdue you.
If you use violence to defend yourself from that situation, they will kill you.
And all this will be done over a measly traffic ticket.>And even if it were inconsistent with the enforcement, we also define rights so differently that the right to life, as I've defined it, still applies.
Except that the right to life is categorically placed at a lesser status dependent on if you respect the state's authority or not.
Which is my big woe.
Let's say you're dictator of the world or whatever. You create laws of the lands within your framework, prioritizing rights as you say.
If someone does not agree with your framework, and refuses to abide, to respect whatever mundane law you have to assist in preserving life in whatever way, whether it be speeding, jaywalking, or not using a gas canister to hold fuel, violence will have to be used to force them into compliance.
If they defend themselves by means of arms, your state will have to kill them.
But perhaps I'm presuming too much in assuming you're arguing a principled position, and not a pragmatic one.
You do keep referencing majority or rarity of situations.
For me, 1 or 1000, rights are rights, violations are violations. Whether it happens to the majority, or the minority, a violation of rights is unacceptable.>Rights are still rights even if they are violated. Same with any moral system. Moral systems still have worth even if they're not always followed. Rights function the same.
Sure. I don't disagree.
But regardless of if rights are still rights, violations are still wrong.
I do not take stock in such things as 'the greater good'.