"Why not"? Why is the right to self defense not a license for
brutality? That's your question? I don't think I/it can be any
clearer.
Of course the NAP does not itemize appropriate retaliations for
every imaginable type and severity of aggression. I believe the
"level" is inherent in the message of non-aggression; if the
self-defense is brutal (overly violent/harsh), it is aggression.
************
{American jurors have complete Constitutional authority to vote
"not guilty" based on nothing more than a disagreement with the
case, no matter the evidence - despite the judge's instructions.
There is absolutely no obligation to vote "guilty" to arrive at a
unanimous verdict. Get on a jury, stand your ground, and fulfill
its other main purpose: to counteract abusive government and
unjust lawsuits.
See www.fija.org
[Please adopt this as your own signature.] }
_____
Why not? The NAP does not specify the appropriate level of
retribution
for the initiation of force.
On Mar 27, 2006, at 7:31 PM, mark robert wrote:
> But true justice prevents such excuses. Even if the act was
real
> aggression and even if the aggression was real censorship or
> copyright infringement or plagiarism, one can't claim physical
> battery as an appropriate self defense. The right to defending
> one's self against aggression is not a license for brutality.
>
_____
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
