[ExI] When do People Make Exceptions to Principles They Hold?

[Lee Corbin]

On 4/17/2009 9:40 PM Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:

 > On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 9:18 AM, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:
 >
 >> But you still want to initiate force against law-abiding
 >> citizens because you suspect that many years in the future
 >> they 'might' spoil a society that you want to scrap anyway.

I don't understand. Who wants to scrap what society?

 > ### Bill, you nailed it.

He did?

 > I mean, if Bill, who is a good guy but no libertarian,
 > has to remind you of *non-initiation of violence*,

Please, give a little credit! I made utterly no
secret (this will be the *third* time I have had
to repeat this), that violations of some principles
is exactly what in certain cases I recommend. It
goes without saying, or should, that I consider
these to be extreme exceptions---otherwise, I
could not be said to hold the principle at all.

 > then ... well, I have no more comments on this issue.

No principle, such as the NAP above, can be mechanically
applied to every situation. Or can it?

Do you believe that the *non-initiation of violence*
is inviolate under all circumstances? Sorry for asking
what may be a dumb question, but I am calmly trying to
improve the communication here.

If, as I suspect, your answer is "no, it is not inviolate
under *all* circumstances", then it would be neat if you
could give an example or two, and perhaps shed light on
any general meta-principle that we might conjecture about;
namely when principles themselves are to be violated.

Thanks,
Lee