Hi. Welcome to the site. Please check out the About Us, and if you have a question about crime and/or punishment, perhaps look at some previous questions along those lines first.
Welcome to Anarchy101 Q&A, where you can ask questions and receive answers about anarchism, from anarchists.

Is the initiation of force preferable to the non initiation of force?

–7 votes
Should I expect a consistent anarchist to be for or against using initiatory violence against other people?

Does consistent anarchism require adherence to the non-aggression principle?
asked Dec 16, 2013 by VoluntaryThinker (380 points)

As mentioned to Sky "Can, not necessarily would". How was it taken non-violently in the first place?

To answer your specific question: My next move would probably be to walk away and wait for an opportunity to take it back. I would use my judgement considering all the relevant factors. Perhaps I subscribe to a security company that has a good reputation for resolving such matters without recourse to violence.

What would you do? Perhaps your judgement would be better than mine ... if you care at all that is ...
I think you mean 'should not necessarily can', rather than 'can not necessarily would'.

also funky explained how the shovel was taken nonviolently; it was taken whilst it was just lying about.
Perhaps it could be taken back the same way ...
so you cant explain how you would do it without violence, so you're going to hire a security company to do... what? you say they have a reputation for not using violence but can you explain how they would actually succeed in handling such matters by any non violent means that you couldn't have simply engaged in yourself?

also at that point it seems worth it to just get a new shovel instead of hiring an army of goons to get a rusty shovel you weren't even using

now that I know you are coming for it, and I put it in a padlocked shed, would you violate the NAP by vandalizing my lock and shed?
To live is an act of involuntary aggression...that's what I don't like about the NAP principle. For all the an-caps and vegan pacifists out there, there is the option of suicide or jainism. Jainism sometimes entails starving yourself so that you aren't doing harm to any of the worlds living creatures. Anarcho-capitalism necessarily implies some sort of mafioso security to instill delusional ideas of private property and inviolable, permanent ownership.

Remember, statecraft takes various forms, just because you call your asset-protection peacekeeping security forces anarchists doesn't mean that they aren't police

2 Answers

+3 votes
Neither, and no.
answered Dec 16, 2013 by Rice Boy (8,610 points)

I'm simply disagreeing with your opinions. That can happen on a forum. You accused me of ignoring the discussion which I haven't.

I have no problem with people not talking to me. I'm not here to make friends. You can do that on Facebook. Political violence is serious and I do 'give a shit' about your opinions and whether mine can stand up to criticism as well. Fortunately you can't enforce you opinions on me, but unfortunately, most people can via the State apparatus.

That's why I asked. You don't explain why it's such a misrepresentation. You just return to a broad rejection of the question itself - "we are trying not to deal in absolutes". I wonder if that's how the cop in the car would see it?

The question: is-the-initiation-force-preferable-the-non-initiation-force?

Your answer appears to be: "ones frustration with the state may incite them to violence". It may. But it doesn't answer the question. I haven't asked you to repeat anything.

Its hard for you to not respond because you're not interested? Is it belligerent to point out straightforward illogicality? If it is, then, yes, 'belligerent as fuck' I am.
I wasn't saying that to bother u. idc. ur being belligerent because you just want to argue. and ur getting mad bc my responses aren't NAP enough. fuck off.

also I never answered. I commented.

its hard for me to not respond because you are saying things so idiotic I cant help but to point them out. but it seems pretty useless.
dns, I don't understand your latest comment directed at me....or what it has to do with what I wrote.

So if I 'criticize' your opinions you 'don't give a shit'. You only 'give a shit' if I agree with you. If I don't you tell me to 'fuck off', but then, apparently, I'm belligerent. Not consistent.

I haven't even got to criticizing your opinions (it's more questioning than criticizing in fact) yet because I'm still trying to understand what your opinion is. It's not NAP. It's not AP. It's not an absolute, it's not universal morality. The only glimpse we have into your thinking, which is the purpose of forum comments, is the shovel and your cop in a car scenario, which, for me, appears to be no principles - just subjective violence.

'Arguing, criticizing'. You can use these words if you like, but we could just as easily say debating and disagreeing. I think we're 'arguing' a tricky but important point. When the State comes to visit his violence on you for smoking a plant or whatever, rightly or wrongly, he/she is functioning according to what he believes is a set of principles that justify the violence he is about to inflict. Those 'principles' are widely held in the minds of most people on the planet that subscribe to the State. Attempting to meet that challenge by offering no principles - subjective violence, due to feeling 'oppressed' etc. is, I suggest, not a persuasive way to demonstrate that anarchism is a better alternative than bowing to the extortion.

Promoting the view that it is the violent aggression itself that is the source of many problems and that there is no reason why the State should not be held to that same standard, ideologically and ultimately practically, disarms the State. An important step if you want to see any real change.

Once you've finished with all the insults and hysterics, perhaps you could explain what is so idiotic about that?
yes! he finally gets it!  no universal principles!  its actually hilarious that it took you that long to get that, given we have been saying that explicitly since the very beginning.

i have no need to be persuasive on whether anarchy is 'better'.  i want it, thats good enough for me.  im not waiting around for anyone.  i dont particularly care whether the world changes.  it would be nice, certainly, but ill not hold my breath.
0 votes
Example: My friend becomes an 'anarcho-capitalist', and then I give him a stiff kick in his ass. :)

The way I understand it is that anarchism isn't a moral prescription. It doesn't and can't dictate how people should act. I'm still trying to figure out how to reconcile this with my previous conception of anarchism as a moralistic save-the-world type utopian social anarchism and Egoism. I am a confused puppy.
answered Dec 16, 2013 by formyinformation (2,390 points)


Even if I was 'looking down on those who don't adhere to it (NAP)', why would that create a real problem for you? It's not like I could enforce it. I'll take other people's 'morality' (which I can ignore) over being shot sitting in a car because someone doesn't like my uniform any day.

I've set out my position on the shovel scenario already. Could it turn violent? Yes, it's possible. Should it turn violent? My judgement. Yours and anyone else who finds themselves in such a situation.

The 'others' would, of course, be confronted with the same set of issues, it's just that they may be more skilled and experienced at handling them. If the intention is to avoid violence, which, in my case, it would be, then turning to such help would be a good idea imo.

"What "non physical types of harm could incite a reasonable person to violence?" Again a question simply answered with another question i.e. a cop out.

I read the earlier comments. I don't see what I'm supposed to have forgotten.

no problem, that's just why I said you are moralizing. 

"What "non physical types of harm could incite a reasonable person to violence?"

your answer:

"I've set out my position on the shovel scenario already. Could it turn violent? yes"

and I was talking about how we mentioned non physical forms of harm like psychological and emotional abuse. manipulation, idk anything like stealing ur shovel according to u

I feel like you aren't even thinking about your responses, as you contradict yourself so much. your efforts to walk back and clean up the slop make it worse (see above).

not copping out just not worth the time. 


It turning violent doesn't imply 'non physical types of harm'.

"psychological and emotional abuse. manipulation, idk anything" - indeed, but I specifically related the NAP to 'physical violence' which you would know if you read my earlier comments.

You haven't pointed out any contradiction. You've simply demonstrated that you never listened to or thought about what I was actually saying.

""psychological and emotional abuse. manipulation, idk anything" - indeed, but I specifically related the NAP to 'physical violence' which you would know if you read my earlier comments."

if I don't agree with the NAP, why would I argue within its framework? you asked me what kind of non physical things can incite someone and those are my answers, I don't have to agree with the NAP. fuck off.

me taking the shovel and it turning physical with you trying to get it back is an example of you being incited to be violent by something non violent

if you only want people to talk to who will respond according to the NAP then go to an ancap forum