Force: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Force''' is the act of compelling someone to do something against | '''Force''' is the act of compelling someone to do (or to not do) something against her or his will. | ||
[[libertarianism|Libertarians]] generally advocate one of two positions on force. Standard libertarian theory holds that force is never legitimate when employed by an [[aggression|aggressor]], ''i.e.'', one who ''initiates'' force or fraud against the person or the justly-acquired property of others, but that there is nothing intrinsically [[ethics|unethical]] about using force defensively against an aggressor so long as the defensive force is [[the principle of proportionality|proportional]] to the initiated force. [[anarchopacifism|Anarchopacifists]] like [[Robert LeFevre]], on the other hand, hold that force is never legitimate, regardless of whether its employer is the initiator or the responder. | |||
{{stub}} | |||
Latest revision as of 13:04, 23 November 2010
Force is the act of compelling someone to do (or to not do) something against her or his will.
Libertarians generally advocate one of two positions on force. Standard libertarian theory holds that force is never legitimate when employed by an aggressor, i.e., one who initiates force or fraud against the person or the justly-acquired property of others, but that there is nothing intrinsically unethical about using force defensively against an aggressor so long as the defensive force is proportional to the initiated force. Anarchopacifists like Robert LeFevre, on the other hand, hold that force is never legitimate, regardless of whether its employer is the initiator or the responder.