If Permanent Portfolio existed during the American Revolution what would the 4th branch be

[Mountaineer]

If there is no moral imperative that exists or can ever supersede NAP/IS, then why would I ever change a baby's diaper, or stop a man from walking into traffic?

I know these questions are going to be interpreted as me just being willfully ignorant, but I'm trying to come up with a LOGICAL framework within which how to place a MORAL prioritization system, and I really don't think the NAP gives us all the tools we need.  There are competing moral imperatives that might get into why it is ok to advocate (or be an agent of) a government that violates certain aspects of NAP/IS to:

1) Prevent more unpopular violations of it, or

2) Prevent other moral imperatives from being violated, if they exist (which they appear to, since both you and I would grab the guy from walking into traffic).

Swamped today and haven't been able to respond.

1. Ok, 99.9% of us realize that it's wrong to steal, murder, abuse etc. It's not wrong because everyone realizes it, they realize it because it's obviously wrong for specific reasons we've gone over time and time again.

2. 99.9% also realize that the diaper thing and the guy walking in traffic and using force to dress a mentally impaired person or restrain someone trying to stab themself is perfectly ok. It's not ok because everyone realizes it, they realize it because it's obvious and for specific reasons. We haven't gone over these that much.

If we understand why the first one is bad and the second one is ok and what is really happening then we can more easily see whether or not the actions of the state (redistribution of wealth and other forms of violence) can be defended by pointing to the actions in the 2nd paragraph.

I think I understand very well why paragraph number 2 actions are ok and don't violate NAP but I'd like to hear anyone else's thoughts first. I feel like I'm always answering questions and it would be better to ask them and challenge the readers to try and answer.

Why is the stuff in number 2 ok and what differentiates it from the actions in number 1?

From my perspective, the answer to your questions is very simple.  The answer is do your best to "love your neighbor" in thought, word and deed.  If you want a long answer, read the explanation of the 10 Commandments here (1 through 3 are mainly about loving God, 4 through 10 are mainly about loving neighbor):

http://eagles.lexington.isd.tenet.edu/i ... dments.pdf

... Mountaineer

[moda0306]

K,

Come on man... you've been dancing around this for months.  If you think the NAP has some competitive moral imperatives, say so.  Now you suddenly care what everyone else thinks?

Oh, and here's an article about the NAP, and why it's so ridiculous when held on a pedestal of moral virtue above any other consideration.

http://www.libertarianism.org/blog/six- ... -principle

http://dbzer0.com/blog/why-the-non-aggr ... guideline/

http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/20 ... ple-redux/


The NAP is a nifty idea, but held out as pure as it is, it's a joke.  There are OBVIOUS situations where we violate NAP, that 99% of us agree upon, but you dance around trying to actually explain your position on these exceptions.

I've moved on from discussions of what defines force, property, theft, ownership, etc, because you felt you have answered those.  I guess we'll have to just agree to disagree as to whether you've supplied a cohesive answer.

But now that I'm actually asking you about other moral measuring sticks out there besides just leaving other people alone, you had repeatedly said "why debate it if 99% of us agree."  When pushed past that to ask yourself WHY it's so obvious that we can initiate force upon others in these situations, you now state that you know the rest of the mystery, but want to hear what others have to say?

You're like a Matrix agent being shot at with logic bullets. 

[Kshartle]

now that I'm actually asking you about other moral measuring sticks out there besides just leaving other people alone, you had repeatedly said "why debate it if 99% of us agree."  When pushed past that to ask yourself WHY it's so obvious that we can initiate force upon others in these situations, you now state that you know the rest of the mystery, but want to hear what others have to say?

You're like a Matrix agent being shot at with logic bullets. 

I was just interested in what you thought for once rather than just keep saying things are complicated and "nobody knows" or whatever. Getting you to actually sate a concrete belief or position is virtually impossible and if I share what I think the entire discussion will center around that.  I am always doing that and you are always just trying to think of more scenarios you need explained to you.

I thought maybe you could actually come up with a reason or two why there is a difference between the actions before I described what I thought.

Guess not.

[Ad Orientem]

The main problem with pacifism, and for that matter anarchism, is that it hinges on assumptions about human nature that are clearly and demonstrably false. In short these things only work if everybody agrees on them and is following the same script. In a world where large numbers of people believe it is perfectly OK and even virtuous to extend their ideology or rule by coercion, pacifists and anarchists are basically a free lunch. Imagine the fate of a group of radical libertarian/anarchist/pacifists in the path of the Nazi army in World War II.

I'm all for small government and non aggression. But anarchism doesn't work. And I have ten thousand years of human history as evidence to that effect. It's utopianistic fantasy.

[Pointedstick]

I thought maybe you could actually come up with a reason or two why there is a difference between the actions before I described what I thought.

Guess not.

There is a difference. But it has nothing to do with the non-agression principle, which is what moda keeps trying to point out.

If your moral principle has to revert to "what 99.9% of people innately know is right" whenever a dilemma or a challenging situation arises, it's a bad moral principle, because the whole point of moral principles to to avoid this, for the reason that all to often, people don't agree what's the right course of action.

What if the person about to get it by a car is suicidal and doing it on purpose? What if he is, but you don't know? What if you do? etc.

[Kshartle]

I thought maybe you could actually come up with a reason or two why there is a difference between the actions before I described what I thought.

Guess not.

There is a difference. But it has nothing to do with the non-agression principle, which is what moda keeps trying to point out.

Really?!?!?!?!

Well then what's the difference? I guess I missed that part. If you know the differences then please share your thoughts. I think it'll be a lot better if we can have a back and forth exchange in friendly fashion where we build on prior posts rather than me give a gigantic lecture. I'm tired of that. I'm happy to share my thoughts obviously but I'd like to see some thought from others rather just repeating over and over and over that things are complicated so no one who thinks they know something could be right.

I don't base moral principles on what 99.9% of people believe. If you read what I wrote you'll see I say specifically that things aren't right or wrong because people believe in them. Did you read those sentences I typed?

[Xan]

Today I was watching Fr Robert Barron's commentary on the latest Superman movie, and somewhat surprisingly, it fit right into a lot of the discussions we've had here on this topic.

He sees the movie (and has direct evidence from the movie itself) as a battle between Platonic totalitarianism in the form of General Zod, and supreme Nietzscheian individualism represented of course by the Übermensch.  He points out that this is the political struggle the world has been engaging in for the past 300 years.

I highly recommend the full 10-minute video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjyOUC_dWsU

I'll also link directly to his conclusions, which are more or less "a plague on both your houses", because neither the state nor the individual is God.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjyOUC_dWsU&t=7m22s

[Kshartle]

What if the person about to get it by a car is suicidal and doing it on purpose? What if he is, but you don't know? What if you do? etc.

You stop them if you can within the amount of personal risk you're willing to accept.

Care to venture a reason why?

[moda0306]

http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Ph ... Exist'.htm

Here's an interesting article on why animal rights might exist.


K,

YOU are the one saying you have all the answers.  You're asking everyone "just stop using violence."  When I ask questions or refer to complexity you accuse me of logical fallacies.  When we post links, you either ignore them or insult us for using them. 

I have made tons of statements on my position that you haven't deductively proven anything, but even if you had, we're in a moral dilemma where we can't perfectly obey the NAP, even if it were logically provable that it was the One Moral Truth.  We've also shown you that you draw arbitrary lines between a sovereign person and "their property," as well as between them and animals, who apparently don't have rights, but have some measurable moral value (which you haven't stated WHY they have it, once again)... which is interesting, because if animals have rights, then this has HUGE ramifications on our economy, which you claim will boom if we just abide by the NAP.

So no, sir, I haven't just said "It's complex," or "nobody knows."  I've said those things and much more.  You've tried to dance around it all.


But if I must...

To me, changing diapers and grabbing a guy from walking into traffic are OK because:

1) The non-aggression principle is not the One True moral imperative.  There are other competing moral considerations that you refuse to recognize directly.

2) These other moral considerations are things I can't prove deductively (which at least I'm willing to admit), but could probably be summed up as a positive duty of care from one conscious being to another, even, in some cases if it means violating NAP in modest ways, or ways that reduce overall aggression.  This duty of care also applies, to some degree, to non-human animals.  I realize this is just a statement with no real logical backing.  This is not a deductive logical argument.  This is a position based on a feeling in my gut about morality.  Please don't accuse any aspect of this statement of logical fallacy.  I am not trying to make a logical argument.


When does this positive duty of care override the NAP?  A few situations:

- Baby needs a diaper changed.
- Man is about to walk into the street.
- Mentally-ill person is dressed against his will.

There are more... they are difference because of this positive duty that I describe.  But, like I said, I can't prove it.

[moda0306]

I thought maybe you could actually come up with a reason or two why there is a difference between the actions before I described what I thought.

Guess not.

There is a difference. But it has nothing to do with the non-agression principle, which is what moda keeps trying to point out.

Really?!?!?!?!

Well then what's the difference? I guess I missed that part. If you know the differences then please share your thoughts. I think it'll be a lot better if we can have a back and forth exchange in friendly fashion where we build on prior posts rather than me give a gigantic lecture. I'm tired of that. I'm happy to share my thoughts obviously but I'd like to see some thought from others rather just repeating over and over and over that things are complicated so no one who thinks they know something could be right.

I don't base moral principles on what 99.9% of people believe. If you read what I wrote you'll see I say specifically that things aren't right or wrong because people believe in them. Did you read those sentences I typed?

The difference is some other moral principal BESIDES the NAP that drives our behavior.  Heck, even your behavior.  It exists independent of the NAP and even supersedes NAP.  In fact, NAP could in fact be IMMORAL in a case where you SHOULD have grabbed a guy from walking into traffic (you clearly saw he was walking out while on his phone and had the ability to stop him, but didn't).

The NAP would be fine if it held itself up as one ideal to generally strive for, but balance against other ideals....

But it doesn't.  the NAP is held up as perfect in-and-of itself.  And that's what makes it so utterly laughable to most of us.

[Kshartle]

Moda,

You are saying we have a duty to other people and to some degree to non-humans and that's based on gut feeling and nothing more. You have a gut feeling but you don't know where it comes from?

Is that it boiled down all the way (honest question)?

Look back at my post. I said this is the case for 99% of people even if they can't articulate why. I am asking for you to think a little bit more about this stuff. Try to actually come up with why you think this or why this might be true.

I am not taking a shot at you. I think this will be 100 times better if I don't give a lecture but we instead try to figure out why those actions are ok since we've covered the others at length.

I will give you a hint at my thoughts about the subject and say it all stems from the concept of property rights.

What are you doing when you do all those things for people that we all "know"  are acceptable morally?

[Kshartle]

The difference is some other moral principal BESIDES the NAP that drives our behavior.  Heck, even your behavior.  It exists independent of the NAP and even supersedes NAP.  In fact, NAP could in fact be IMMORAL in a case where you SHOULD have grabbed a guy from walking into traffic (you clearly saw he was walking out while on his phone and had the ability to stop him, but didn't).

If you don't know the difference it's ok to say so.

Some other moral principle does not describe the difference between stopping a guy from running into traffic and stealing an old ladies purse. You're changing the topic.

[Libertarian666]

The main problem with pacifism, and for that matter anarchism, is that it hinges on assumptions about human nature that are clearly and demonstrably false. In short these things only work if everybody agrees on them and is following the same script. In a world where large numbers of people believe it is perfectly OK and even virtuous to extend their ideology or rule by coercion, pacifists and anarchists are basically a free lunch. Imagine the fate of a group of radical libertarian/anarchist/pacifists in the path of the Nazi army in World War II.

I'm all for small government and non aggression. But anarchism doesn't work. And I have ten thousand years of human history as evidence to that effect. It's utopianistic fantasy.

Sorry, but the notion that government can be kept in check is the utopian fantasy.
How many people were killed in the 20th century by anarchists?
How many were killed by governments?
And there is a big difference between pacifism and anarchism; the former is indeed trying to wish away the existence of criminals, but the latter certainly is not.

[Kshartle]

The main problem with pacifism, and for that matter anarchism, is that it hinges on assumptions about human nature that are clearly and demonstrably false. In short these things only work if everybody agrees on them and is following the same script. In a world where large numbers of people believe it is perfectly OK and even virtuous to extend their ideology or rule by coercion, pacifists and anarchists are basically a free lunch. Imagine the fate of a group of radical libertarian/anarchist/pacifists in the path of the Nazi army in World War II.

I'm all for small government and non aggression. But anarchism doesn't work. And I have ten thousand years of human history as evidence to that effect. It's utopianistic fantasy.

Sorry, but the notion that government can be kept in check is the utopian fantasy.
How many people were killed in the 20th century by anarchists?
How many were killed by governments?
And there is a big difference between pacifism and anarchism; the former is indeed trying to wish away the existence of criminals, but the latter certainly is not.

I can't even respond to these nonsensical and fallacious arguments anymore. I don't know how many times they have to be knocked down.

Saying the problem with anarchy and why we need government is because people are sometimes violent is a level one logic bomb.

[moda0306]

Moda,

You are saying we have a duty to other people and to some degree to non-humans and that's based on gut feeling and nothing more. You have a gut feeling but you don't know where it comes from?

Is that it boiled down all the way (honest question)?

Look back at my post. I said this is the case for 99% of people even if they can't articulate why. I am asking for you to think a little bit more about this stuff. Try to actually come up with why you think this or why this might be true.

I am not taking a shot at you. I think this will be 100 times better if I don't give a lecture but we instead try to figure out why those actions are ok since we've covered the others at length.

I will give you a hint at my thoughts about the subject and say it all stems from the concept of property rights.

What are you doing when you do all those things for people that we all "know"  are acceptable morally?

I think it's right because if a human being or other being has moral value, and I recognize that moral value, then there are situations where their moral value trump both THEIR free choice (in that instance) and my moral non-obligation to act.

Is that better?

Most people would admit that morality is kind of a gut-feel thing, K.  I don't feel like you're taking shots at me for thinking so.  I think you're fooling yourself for thinking that this is all one big logical equation, and that you've already got the right answer.

If you don't know the difference it's ok to say so.

Some other moral principle does not describe the difference between stopping a guy from running into traffic and stealing an old ladies purse. You're changing the topic.

Ugh. My lord.

I don't know the difference, K.  Please enlighten us, would you?

[moda0306]

I'd love to see an anarcho-capitalist debate an anarchist with a more "possession" view of property.

There are MASSIVE differences between what some anarchists vs others believe is legitimate property.  So even if we were all anarchists following each our own NAP, we'd still end up in huge disagreement with each other as to who owns what and why, and since violations of property are initiations of aggression, which are validly defended with force, Boom goes the dynamite.... the great Anarchist Civil War of 2030.

[Kshartle]

What are you doing when you do all those things for people that we all "know"  are acceptable morally?

I think it's right because if a human being or other being has moral value, and I recognize that moral value, then there are situations where their moral value trump both THEIR free choice (in that instance) and my moral non-obligation to act.

Is that better? [/quote]

You're saying that because you value the life of a human and that subjective value potentially trumps their right to freely choose their actions and you're moral non-obligation to act to save them?

I don't believe you. You are simultaneously saying that you believe you have a moral non-oligation to act (Does that mean your'e obligated to not act?) as well as them having a right to choose freely for themselves (again why) and that if the sum of those two subjective things are less than the subjective value you place in their existance it is now ok to act.

This doesn't make any sense to me and I don't think you actually believe it.


Ok well I have one more question if you would please humor me. If your neighbor's house was burning down and you saw him frantically grab a bucket filled with fluid and run at the house thinking it was water, but you knew it was gasoline.....would it be ok to tackle him? If so....why? This one should be even easier.

[Xan]

Ok well I have one more question if you would please humor me. If your neighbor's house was burning down and you saw him frantically grab a bucket filled with fluid and run at the house thinking it was water, but you knew it was gasoline.....would it be ok to tackle him? If so....why? This one should be even easier.

I'm not understanding this challenge.  Moda is saying that things like that ARE okay, but that YOU are incapable of coherently saying WHY they're okay.

[moda0306]

K,

My moral non-obligation to act was under NAP... if NAP is all we have, then I don't have ANY moral obligation to stop him from walking into traffic.  Not an obligation to NOT act... just no obligation to act.

Why else would I save someone's life if I didn't give it some intrinsic value, and that it usurps his "free right" to walk into traffic?

Freedom isn't everything.  Free choice isn't the ONLY meaningful state in life at all times.  Sometimes you've gotta tackle them to the ground and take their keys so they don't drive drunk, or constrain your kid from running into the street.  I'm so lost in trying to figure out what you want from me, or where you're going with this, that I can't answer your question any better, I don't think.

Regarding the guy with the bucket of gasoline, you absolutely tackle him, because he's a valuable human being and doesn't know what he's about to do.  His right to not have his free will violated is usurped by the damage he could do to his life and others.

Is that fair?  Do you believe me?

[Kshartle]

its late in the day and i don't have much time to fully flesh out an idea right now (so no guarantee this is what i ultimately believe), but i will throw this into the mix for consideration..

you can save a stranger from traffic, diaper a child or dress the disabled, because of the right to defend property, i have the right to defend my life/property, the life/property of family and loved ones and by extension the life/propriety of strangers, there is a certain amount of "acting on good faith" the stranger on a phone might be trying to photo the license plate of a bus that just ran somebody down and pulling him back could be the wrong choice. but in all of the described situations the actor is acting based on having or thinking they have, more information than the acted upon, the stranger doesn't see the bus, the baby doesn't know painful diaper rash is being prevented, the disabled person doesn't know they will freeze or be arrested if naked... so acting doesn't violate NAP because it is a "in good faith" defense of property..

i am not convinced that NAP has the irrefutable logical one moral truth status that some do, or that it can ever be a fully realized utopian solution. i do think that we have to pick a direction to move the world toward and the other (non NAP) directions all lead to more government, more violence, less freedom and more coercion.. not to tough to make the choice... moral absolutes and potential for full realization don't seem necessary

Yes this is preciesly it. I'm tired too but I'll expound on it tomorrow some. I wanted to hear someone else say it so I could build off it. There is a lot more needed to fully "flesh it out" but I'm confident of this premise.

Thanks man.

[moda0306]

its late in the day and i don't have much time to fully flesh out an idea right now (so no guarantee this is what i ultimately believe), but i will throw this into the mix for consideration..

you can save a stranger from traffic, diaper a child or dress the disabled, because of the right to defend property, i have the right to defend my life/property, the life/property of family and loved ones and by extension the life/propriety of strangers,  there is a certain amount of "acting on good faith" the stranger on a phone might be trying to photo the license plate of a bus that just ran somebody down and pulling him back could be the wrong choice. but in all of the described situations the actor is acting based on having or thinking they have, more information than the acted upon, the stranger doesn't see the bus, the baby doesn't know painful diaper rash is being prevented, the disabled person doesn't know they will freeze or be arrested if naked...  so acting doesn't violate NAP because it is a "in good faith" defense of property..

Yes this is preciesly it. I'm tired too but I'll expound on it tomorrow some. I wanted to hear someone else say it so I could build off it. There is a lot more needed to fully "flesh it out" but I'm confident of this premise.

Thanks man.

So now we've brought a huge, completely subjective "but they don't know any better" into the NAP.

Sorry but that just doesn't fly.  How many times could you warrant initiating aggression on someone "for their own good."

It's ok to say you don't know.

Or that "the ends justify the means."

[moda0306]

you still seem to be completely missing, (or ignoring to preserve your argument), the distinction between aggression and defensive force...you posted

"I think it's right because if a human being or other being has moral value, and I recognize that moral value,"

but your argument gets all muddled up when you don't differentiate between types of force, the two principles, NAP, and "a human being or other being has moral value" are not contrary to each other... they complement each other...  it seems to me they are very close to the same thing, defending protecting a life/property and defending protecting a being with moral value...

How many times could you warrant initiating aggression on someone "for their own good."

if you are talking about "aggression" and not defensive force.. that is a question better asked of a government

So what if I'm a government agent labeling my actions defensive force, not "aggression."  In fact, isn't the big problem with liberals that they want to control people's actions "for their own good?"

Other questions to this issue:

- what's the legal consensual age for sex or contract?

- do animals have any "defensible" moral value?

- is all pollution aggression?

- are risky behaviors to the well-being of others aggression?

- what if someone is trying to commit suicide?

Your example puts "good faith" towards an outcome ahead of individual freedom. If individual choice is so great, it should lead to ok outcomes without your "good faith" efforts to control others "in their own defense."  Sounds like nanny-statism in anarcho-capitalist clothing.

And I'll take this a step further to ask whether if it is ever IMMORAL not to take action?  If I sit and watch a guy walk out into the street and do nothing, is there any negative moral weight to that.

So what if I'm a government agent labeling my actions defensive force, not "aggression." In fact, isn't the big problem with liberals that they want to control people's actions "for their own good?"

you cant just label it defensive force and make it so, the boundary between the two types of force are clearly defined, the big problem with liberals (and conservatives) is they want the government to initiate aggressive force for peoples own good, i cant think of to many instances where the government (or an individual) defends a persons property,life or liberty that cause that person to have a complaint

Your example puts "good faith" towards an outcome ahead of individual freedom. If individual choice is so great, it should lead to ok outcomes without your "good faith" efforts to control others "in their own defense." Sounds like nanny-statism in anarcho-capitalist clothing.

i don't think the persons freedom is harmed, the freedom to engage in self destructive behavior knowingly, and the "moral value" of those who are unknowingly in harms way or incapable of protecting themselves and giving them giving help are different.
the good faith part of this is applied to the "recognizing the moral value" and giving the benefit of the doubt to the idea that "life" should be protected.. it may or may not ultimately be the best choice (see the bus/ license photo example ) but the argument that it violates the NAP is false

"nanny-statism in anarcho-capitalist clothing"? my guess is you are once again muddling the distinction between the two types of force ..the word "controlling" is a description of aggressive force, "controlling" somebody in a way that defends a persons property, life or liberty isn't control... the assumption is that property,life and liberty are something that we all want defended.

[Kshartle]

Regarding the guy with the bucket of gasoline, you absolutely tackle him, because he's a valuable human being and doesn't know what he's about to do.  His right to not have his free will violated is usurped by the damage he could do to his life and others.

Is that fair?  Do you believe me?

If you're saying you now believe in the right of people to their own lives and property and the invalidity of the use of force that's great!

There is no usurpation of his free will here and the damage he could do to his life is not what makes the action acceptable.

It's not his free will that he burn his house down with gasoline. He's trying to, or at least you assume he's trying to rescue his property. He's just ignorant of what he's doing. It's the same with the guy walking in front of traffic, the baby fussing, the mentally challenged person and everyone else where it looks like "force" is acceptable. It's not the initiation of force that's occuring AGAINST someone but it's the defense of their lives/property. There is a much bigger issue here at work.

It's not a coincicdence that we all know these things are ok. It's a gut feeling for almost everyone but the question is why?!?!?! Why do we have this feeling? We have it because we know we own ourselves and our property. We all want others to help us defend our lives and our property and we are ok with them interferring when we are messing up or ignorant. We don't need to be taught this. It's evident that we know we know we own ourselves and our property when we are very young. One of the first words everyone learns is "mine". When we get hit we cry because we know that's wrong to and a violation of our rights, even though we can't express it.

This stuff is real and we can see it all around us.

It's not ok to stop him because if you don't he might hurt himself. At least....it's not just because of that. That is an outcome. It's saying that the ends justify the means. This isn't about ends...it's about the action. A code of morality describes a code of behavior. A action isn't good or bad because of the result. Let me prove that:

If you tackled him while he's running with the bucket of gas and he has a heart attack, are you a murderer? Did you murder him? Are you responsible or should you be held responsible for his death? If not, why not?

If he instead were 70 years and dying from cancer and in terrible pain, and had decided to end his life and suffering, if you wrestle the needle of poison out his hands or arm is that acceptable or a violation of his rights? It's still you saving his life right? The end result is the same. Is this use of force justified?

[Kshartle]

Sorry but that just doesn't fly.  How many times could you warrant initiating aggression on someone "for their own good."

It's ok to say you don't know.

Or that "the ends justify the means."

It's not about the ends. It's about the action.

Moda, you know it's wrong to go up to a stranger and punch them in the face but it's ok to grab them before they step in front of a bus. You call it a gut feeling, like 99.9% of people. Do you think it's a coincidence that everyone knows this?

We are describing for you why this exists. It's not because of the outcome. If it was because of the outcome then you could just say "well, if I steal from A and give to B then stealing is ok because B really needs it". Maybe you are even B.

An action isn't right or moral because of it's outcome. This is the argument from effects. It's actually a lack of morality or a rejection of a moral code. "Ends justify the means" is a rejection of morality and human rights.

Defense of property rights and life is acceptable. The guy walking in front of the bus, the guy with the bucket of gasoline and all the others are not expressing their property rights so you are not violating them, you are defending them. That's what makes it ok. That's why if you break the guys arm when you tackle him or whatever you have not commited assult or a crime or whatever. Everyone knows this stuff......we're just explaining why.

Welfare might seem to you on the same moral plane as grabbing the guy, being his safety net. Indeed that sort of analogy is used as defense of welfare. But welfare has nothing in common with it. The first one is a defense of property rights and the other is a complete violation of it. And look at the results. There is a real consequence to the violation of human rights. In the case of welfare it's increased poverty for millions and less wealth for all. It's destruction of families, increased crime and suffereing and increased control by those in power. It's not a coincidence that good doesn't come from immoral behavior. The actions aren't immoral because of the result. The result is bad because the actions are immoral.

[Kshartle]

So what if I'm a government agent labeling my actions defensive force, not "aggression."  In fact, isn't the big problem with liberals that they want to control people's actions "for their own good?"

A government can't be created without the violation of property rights so it's a non-starter.

That's why non-government, free-market solutions to problems are better because they don't require a violation of property rights and all the problems that come with it. - Note that's why I say better, not more moral. They are moral because of what they are, not the result. However, moral actions result in good outcomes, Immoral behavior results in bad outcomes.