@secularmerlin:
There is world of difference between shouldering responsibility for someone's wellbeing and being justified in shooting them and I just don't think shooting an unaarmed person is ever justified. They are unarmed.
What is this "world's difference"?
@3RU7AL:
Good point. You must establish legal-standing (ostensibly by violating the mother's privacy, and by extension, the privacy of all mothers).
So then why must she leave the child, as you pointed out earlier, at a "medical facility"? If she were to have a home birth, couldn't she just leave the child there and exercise her right to privacy by doing nothing?
It could also be considered a suicide if, under Athias' hypothetical moral standard, "the aggressor ('the big guy') is responsible for any and all defensive actions taken against them".
Another sophistic argument. Suicide is the act itself; the responsibility under my proposed moral standard is moral accountability/liability.
Are you familiar with Voluntarism?
Yes.
It is also a major contributor to OPPRESSION.
It also contributes to low self-esteem, lying, drinking, cheating, bullying, etc. but none of the aforestated informs the context of this discussion. It wouldn't be unreasonable to presume that fear is a component in self-defense. The extent of said fear need not inform the one who's the "bigger scaredy-cat."
How does that mesh with your "individualism" moral framework?
Are some people "more" individual than others?
That was a joke.
The law should be logically coherent and fair (no respector of specific person's or entities).
So who's the real "con-artist"? The corporations are neither hiding nor are they tricking public officials into passing laws. They're not doing anything overtly illegal; so who's putting on the con? They or the entity which claims to represent the interests of the people over whom it presides?
When corporations pay legislators (with campaign contributions and endorsements and free PR) to pass laws (that the corporations wrote themselves) that benefit their own interests, they are making a mockery of the people's faith in the law. [LINK] and
[LINK]
Isn't that the essence of campaign contributions? When one donates to a campaign, whether it be one dollar, five dollars, 10, etc. are they too not paying to see a legislator pass law that benefits their own interests? Should campain contributions end?
The law should be logically coherent and fair (no respector of specific person's or entities).
The law should be independent from government arbitration? So then who or what determines law?
What about implicit threats? What about perceived threats? Are "pre-emptive strikes" legitimate responses to implicit threats, or are they naked "acts of aggression"?
I'll use examples:
1. My neighbor has an armed bomb in his basement that can take out a city block; up until the moment the bomb explodes, my neighbor has done me no harm. However, if that bomb were to detonate, there's no question that I would be affected.
2. A person points a firearm at me. The person states that he intends to kill me. Up until the moment he discharges his weapon, he has done me no harm. However, if that firearm were to discharge, there's no question that I would be affected.
The threat must be immediately tied and embodied in the initiation of aggression.
And furthermore, doesn't the law itself derive its legitimacy through threat of force?
So then, what can you infer from every regulation being codified with the threat of (lethal) force?
Is your "individualism" logically-compatible with a legal framework?
Bingo. No, it isn't.
