Proportionality of response is the probable term here.. -TLP
--- In [email protected], "mark robert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "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/
