[ExI] A possible justification for applying force even in an extreme libertarian minarchist state

[Odell Huff]

I've been working on a paper, A Just Order, where I make the case that
Strictly Defensive Violence--the use of an only sufficient amount of
violence to halt an aggression in real time (by individual or institution
on their behalf), to halt eg the rape of Tolstoy's sister, can be an
ethical use of violence if it meets strict and suspect Imminency,
Necessary, and Minimal tests. But this concession therefore precludes all
other justifications, such as retribution or deterrence, benevolence, even
rectificatory or restitutive violence, and indeed any form of supposedly
minimizing or optimizing violence, the justification of which in
(classical) liberal theory I deem the "liberal defect." And so I criticize
all the liberal philosophers, from Aristotle to Rothbard, who make
justifications of these types of violence, which more often than not are
inconsistent with the rest of their philosophies anyway.

It's just a draft and I'm not a trained grad student, but if anybody is at
all interested, email me privately and I'd be thrilled to share some of it
for criticism.


On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 1:26 PM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:

> If the topic didn't make it abundantly clear, I'm talking hypothetical
> extremes here. ;)
>
> Specifically: it has sometimes been posited on this list that a utopian
> government, or anarchy, should never apply coercive force.  I've had issue
> with that position, but I hadn't found a really good way of stating it
> until now:
>
> http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/wicks20131120
>
> Discuss.
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20131123/7364c344/attachment.html>