I have made much of the right to use self-defense. All the while I have wondered if my words could be misused by he who would rationalize evil by my words. I would like to state plainly when violence may be employed (defense) and when it may not be employed but disassociation may be. Disassociation is a powerful tool. We are denied the natural right to disassociate (and associate) voluntarily in the US. Such is true in most states. It is a part of the power of the state that it may say with whom, at what time, for what reasons you may or may not associate with others. This is oppression.
I may use violence to defend against violence. Questions of proportionality may be raised. I will not pursue them. Such details are worth consideration but they are all to be measured by the principle of equality. It is the scale that weighs equals that ultimately decides. For now, I would like to distinguish attack from mere pain for me.
Attack is the aimed at effort to separate me from exclusive control of my body and property. Much of it is captured by theft, assault and murder. But a boxing match does not involve assault. And a trade that I realize I don’t like later is not theft. But, if A and B contract to trade and A has given now (gold) what B will only give up later (iron from mining project). Note that B is in possession of A’s property only on the condition that he fulfills his end. If he does not meet his end he must return A’s property. If he does not, A has been lied to. A may pursue the return of his property. But if A and B have contracted and before the transfer of any property has taken place one bails no theft has taken place.
If A hires B to work and B works according to contract but A does not pay A is now in possession of B’s property according to the terms of the contract. B may pursue A and ownership of what is his that A holds.
Let’s say I am born and cast off by my sire. I have nothing. Have I been attacked. I have not. Things may go poorly for me but I can see that I have no recourse against my sire. What would any rational community do with men who spread their seed and leave the product of it to be dealt with by other members? They would first disassociate from the irresponsible man. He is not worth association who merely adds to the costs of life willy-nilly. If the community included in its contract no leaving for dead the product of one’s seed, then he could be held to whatever fine was to be required. One can imagine both a punishment as well as the extraction of resources for the longterm care of the child. The point though is to deal with the cast off.
It has been a part of every decent community to look after those to whom tragedies occur. This is under the principle that it may happen to me and under a kind of insurance I help others to whom misfortune occurs that is not the product of intention and aim. But no one in his right mind would choose to support the one who aims at evil or who casts off his troubles onto others. And starving children in the streets are trouble to others given the natural affection the human animal has for its young and those that look like its young (others’ young).
Defense in the sense of active push-back against invaders of body and property is warranted only under the attack. And threats are at least an early part of attack. Disassociation is the right tool for the rogue who has not attacked.
What the UN Declaration of Human Rights so mistakenly does is hold before the average human the absurd idea that he has rights to the property and bodies of others. This is an invitation of trouble. Every right is the responsibility of another. If I have a right to water, then someone has the responsibility of furnishing it. That means that someone is holding my property. But this is absurd. This absurdity encourages those who have little to look violently upon those who have more and this is generative of violence too often. So, the rich work toward further protection of their property. And the poor are enraged even further.
Don’t be deceived. Warren Buffet and Bill Gates have started non-profit organizations for other reasons than mere good will. Have you seen the rules about access the state has to the funds of the non-profit? What a move to preserve wealth. What would they do with it if there were no confiscatory access the state had to inheritance. I don’t know.
Disassociation is a powerful tool. We are social animals who do not do well alone. We will sign our names on the dotted line often in order to be a part of the club. If only the state would permit, instead of imprisoning and fining those who engage in disassociation, free association and disassociation. There could be much alteration of bad behavior by abstaining from association. But there is no good that comes from forcing it. Certainly not virtue.