🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <gall-0304981920470001@usrts1m11.uwinnipeg.ca>, gall@uwinnipeg.ca (Norman Gall) wrote:
>
>You don't think that getting evicted or fired from a job is a 'clear act
>of agression'?  You have an odd sense of aggresion.
>

No I don't. My  understanding of aggression follows from a rational 
understanding of property rights. Contracts are contracts--and I include 
contracts for usage--but employment is generally on an hourly or weekly or 
other time delimited basis, as are rental contracts. Employees can fire an 
employer on a whim, can't they? I can leave any place I rent with a month's 
notice can't I--even if either or both of these acts materially *hurt[s]* the 
employer's or renter's interests. Is leaving a job or choosing a different 
rental abode *aggression*?

> 
>> Wasn't saying that. I was saying that pushing folks to make decisions 
>> engenders a needless reaction in many cases. I am for education and argument,
>> not coercion.
>
>Then you must be against any form of criminal or civil law.  If so, I'd
>argue that you were irrational.

I'm sorry. Perhaps I confused you or didn't state my position clearly enough. 
What I meant was: I am against the *instigation of force* as a matter of 
principle. Criminal and civil sanctions _ought_ to be after the fact and a 
reaction to the instigation of force or fraud. These remedies ought not to be 
preemptive and impacting on people who engage in no instigatory behaviour. 

>  If not, when *could* we be justified in
>using coercion to prevent certain actions?
>

Coercion to _prevent_???? As in _how_? Kill you *in case*???? I'm interested 
in your logically consistent defense of pre-emptive punishment, and your 
defense of the *presumption of guilt*

Ron