Monday, December 12, 2016

Playing an aggressive game by aggressive rules

(Previously posted to Patreon)

Evil people exist. That's just reality. And if you are torturing one of them you are just as evil as they are, no matter your justification.

This is something it seems many people can't quite grasp- that if you archate you are the bad guy, even if the person you are archating against has archated in the past.

Torture is never in self defense, just as mass murder is never self defense.

Self defense occurs at the time and place of the violation.

If you are in the position to be the torturer, you are obviously not being violated anymore. Nor, is the person you are in a position to torture capable of violating anyone. You can claim he may have information to stop the violation of someone else, but you never know that for certain, and even if true, how do you know violating him will result in accurate information you can use to defend someone else? And, overwhelmingly, torture is used to prevent people from striking back at people who are violating them ("troops" invading someone's territory, for example).

As with all acts of this sort, my opinion isn't going to change your behavior, but I will make judgments as to your trustworthiness and ethical makeup based on your actions. If I see you doing things you have no right to do, I will not trust you or think you are a good person in general. In that case, I won't risk as much to come to your defense when I see someone violating you. I'll just think you are experiencing the consequences of the way you think the world should work.


This blog, like all of, is reader supported. Thank you.


  1. I certainly agree with you about "torture". No question it is immoral.

    Where I might have a different viewpoint, is your position that "corrective action" can only be taken at the point of the "initiation" of violence.

    If a party has been aggressed against, they certainly have the right to recover stolen property or seek redress for the violation. Not a state but the individual initially aggressed against.

    They may certainly use justifiable force in this, as they are not "initiating" aggression, they are still responding to the initial aggression in an attempt to "right a wrong".


    1. I don't think your viewpoint is different from mine. I believe there's a difference between recovering stolen property or seeking restitution and just trying to punish someone- which is what I see most "justice" as.

  2. "Self defense occurs at the time and place of the violation."

    Not necessarily. It depends on the violation.

    Violence comes in many forms, and self defense is any necessary act against it.

  3. if they have aggressed in the past, and are staging to do so yet again...

    it is losing strategy to let them mass for attack at time and place of their choosing, before "defending yourself". not wanting to let them unleash their planned attack- I argue that the only rational move is to kill them all while they are vulnerable; inflicting the most "defense" possible onto them, with the least injury to me.

    Losing tactics. vs. chance to win.

    waiting for time and place of their deliberate massed attack seems... really bad for me.

    confusing reality and reason, compounded by my wanting not to be in impossible situation of their choosing.

    1. "if they have aggressed in the past, and are staging to do so yet again..." then what you are facing is a credible threat, and you are justified using violence to defend yourself. Non-aggression isn't suicidal, it just isn't aggressive.

    2. thank you kent, for again making that clear.
      i always ask, to clarify; to help folks just starting to think things through.

  4. Restitution can also be revenge or justice or whatever, like a correction, righting a wrong.

    Defense can come in as many forms as violence, and is not limited to an immediate physical threat. Defense is simply a necessary act against violation.

    For example, you have a right to go burn down the NSA headquarters and kill everyone there because they refuse to not spy on you and yours. It is a necessary act of defense against violence.

  5. Restitution is justice, but I never see revenge that way. And, I agree about the NSA headquarters.

  6. Your response to comments seems to negate the absolute-ness of the statement: "Self defense occurs at the time and place of the violation." and that is a good thing in my opinion since I don't believe that a successful agression where the perpetrator then escapes precludes a justified response at a subsequent time.

    Your concurence with the responders point about the NSA however seems to throw the proper proportionality in response completely out of proper balance. Being spied upon may warrent preventive measures or similar retaliations (a la hacks and Wikileak revalations) but hardly violence or killings.

    1. NSA employees do more than spy. They help aggressors violate those being spied on, and they exist on stolen money. Spying on someone is an annoyance, and is rude. I don't think a violent response would be justified there. Not even someone spying on my daughter- if they are trespassing, that's the violation I'll defend myself and my daughter from. And, I'll also help her find ways to minimize the chances of being spied on. So, spying in and of itself isn't a good justification for violence (and I know lots of people disagree with me on that). Helping someone use the information gained by spying (while continuing to gather more information) is an ongoing credible threat. In my opinion, anyway.

      And, I may be wrong.

    2. "NSA employees do more than spy."
      I concur. And if they do something that justifies a proportionate escalation in response then that is valid; but not for just "spying" I would fully support the results of any "spying" on them; including the public outing of the individual NSA personnel doing it. Turnabout is fair play; tit for tat; whats good for the goose....etc.

  7. I should add that while reciprocity may be a good general guide to determining a proportionate response and indeed may be all the better they deserve; It should never be an excuse to violate the individuals own code of behavioir or honor. There are certain things that others may be depraved enough to do to me that I would never sink down to myself (hopefully) as I strive to be a better individual than the norm represented by the collective herd.