It's not arbitrary. It's called the distinction between retaliatory and preemptive force. Retaliatory force requires a victim and evidence of causation. Preemptive force has no objective anchor, hence arbitrary by definition. You can't jail a man for a crime he might commit tomorrow.

▲

vrganj a day ago | parent [-]

What im saying is that this distinction is arbitrary. Running a society isn't all about punishing crimes. That's just one minor aspect of a states responsibilities. Standardization is another, arguably more important one.

▲

piekvorst a day ago | parent [-]

It's far from minor. To ban physical force from social relationships, people need an institution charged with the task of protecting their rights. People's rights can only be violated by physical force. To prevent this, the government's only solution is to hold a legal monopoly on the use of physical force.

If this vested power remains unchecked and unlimited, the government will violate the rights of its own citizens. That's why we should limit its power to retaliatory use.

Standardization is a very valuable asset, I don't deny that. But:

1. Standardization is not limited to forced standardization;

2. It's better to live in a world not fully standardized than to accept the premise that it's right to violate rights for a good cause. The "good cause" shifts the question from "should rights be violated?" to "what kind of violation do you want?" Once we accept that, we lose to totalitarianism. A man who says "let's violate a tiny fraction of rights" would lose to a man who declares "let's violate rights of thousands."

▲

vrganj a day ago | parent [-]

There's more to rights than just physical force.

How do you account for the right to clean water and sanitation [0] without state infrastructure, just as an example?

It feels like you care a lot about violence and force, at the expense of (imo) more important issues societies face.

[0] https://www.unwater.org/water-facts/human-rights-water-and-s...

▲

piekvorst a day ago | parent [-]

If people without an access to clean water want it, the proper route is to trade with those who do, not victimize them. There can be no right that involves sacrifices of one man to another.

Trying to wield sacrifices at the point of a gun (by an official or legislator) is the most important and disturbing modern issue. It paves the road to all actual social conflicts, unrest, and misunderstanding.

▲

vrganj a day ago | parent [-]

The people withholding the water in this scenario are the ones victimizing the ones without. That's where the state monopoly on violence has to come in as a corrective mechanism.

▲

piekvorst a day ago | parent | next [-]

If "withholding" means actively blocking someone from acessing water they already have a right to, you'd be correct. But that's not what's in your link. Passive possession, "I have water, I'm not giving it to you," is not initiation of force. It's simply not being someone else's servant.

And it's unjust to assume humanity wouldn't help unless forced to.

By calling upon sacrifices, the first target would be engineers, plumbers, and utility workers. Forcing the people who actually produce and deliver clean water isn't justice.

▲

vrganj a day ago | parent [-]

You're completely discounting the most perfidious type of violence: economic violence.

Punishing and preventing it is the core purpose of the state.

	▲	piekvorst a day ago \| parent [-]
		What exactly do you mean by "economic violence"? If you mean fraud or theft, we already agree those are crimes. If you mean something else, I'd like to know what.

▲

cindyllm a day ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]