Cosmo Mielke My position is that the bar to using violence or threats...
· Comment — Archer T. Ships replied to Cosmo Mielke's comment. · View on Facebook · Markdown source
Cosmo Mielke My position is that the bar to using violence or threats of violence should be high. Just as progressives think that all sexual interactions should be based on mutual consent, I think that _all_ human actions should be based on mutual consent. IMO, coercion is only justified to stop even greater coercion. So, for example, I support laws against murder. I think one is justified to use threats of violence to dissuade would-be murderers, because allowing murderers to kill people at will is even more coercive than the coercion required to stop them. Likewise, I support laws against theft. I think stopping armed bandits from seizing your house is less coercive than letting them have free reign to steal from you at will. By contrast, most progressives think the bar to using threats of violence should be low. They want to use threats of violence to force everyone to obey their preferences, from the sugar content of soda, to the height of houses, to the content of tweets on Twitter. Progressives also have very sticky fingers. IMO, the people who create wealth should be able to decide how they spend the wealth they create. Progressives, on the other hand, think they have the right to extort a huge chunk of the money everyone else earns, in order to fund the charities they prefer. I don't think extorting people for money under the color of law is any ethically different from extorting their money as a freelance bandit.