Penn Jillette to CNN guest defending ‘Religious Freedom’ laws: No one is being asked to have gay sex

That's different the difference here is between defensive and offence means. I'll give you the 101 on this I'm an anarchist but that doesn't mean what you think it does. People think anarchy means "no rules" and its thugs in black balaclavas throwing molotovs. That's nonsense. That's not anarchism that's just nihilism. The core of anarchism is non violence it means "no RULERS" not "no rules". We hold that the initiation of violence is morally wrong. That's why we view what I suppose we call "statism" (I don't think that's a word its bad grammar but I'll go with it) as morally wrong because you have these opposing moral categories. I can't use violence against you, because violence is wrong, but the government can use violence against you, because they're the government? That's a contradiction if violence is wrong its wrong for everyone. Its like when a Christian says whatever God says is moral, because he's God he's exempt for the law just because.

So the core principle is the NAP; non-aggression principle. You do not have the moral right to initiate the use of force (which is any coercive means really including the credible threat of violence). To be clear this not pacifism we would contend you do have the moral right to use violence in self defence, but that's the only time you can.

In the case of exiling violent criminals you ask what's to stop them coming back. Well if they come back they are now trespassing. That's an act of aggression we would now be the defensive party and within our rights to repel them, with force if necessary. Your suggestion about a voluntary imprisonment is actually spot on that's a good example; we offer terms our criminal can either agree to incarceration or we exile him (killing him would not be an option unless he outright attacked us). The exile is not an offensive action. We simply exercise our right to not associate with him. He would be unwelcome in every place of business he would not be able to buy groceries or rent an apartment. He would be a social leper. If you think about it life would get really difficult really fast. Voluntary prison might look like a more attractive option.

This is different from traditional law enforcement lets stick with the cake shop example since we're familiar with it. He had not actually committed any act of aggression so this was not self defence on their part. They called in the state to initiate violence against him he got a court date and was ordered to pay or else armed men are going to come and take him away.

Sometimes it is a subtle distinction but it is an important one.

/r/atheism Thread Parent Link -