0
1

[–] rexgao 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

First, wonderful explanation.

I have one doubt about this sentence under the article 4: The only violence anarchists accept is violence, proportionate, in self defense, i.e. not ochlarchist or other authoritarian actions.

I think it is fairly hard to identify whether a self defense violence is proportionate or not, given a scenario:

One day, when I came back to home, I see a very strong burglar stabbing my family with a knife; my family is screaming. Assume at that moment I don't have a knife but I have a handgun.

Is it proportionate for me to shoot the burglar? How badly should I wound the burglar?

0
1

[–] DukeofAnarchy 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

I think it's pretty unambiguous that, in your scenario, shooting him would be proportionate. And while I admit that in some circumstances it can be hard to judge, I think that's just an inevitable difficulty in applying any general principle of justice to particular cases. The real test is: how would we get along without a proportionality limit on retaliatory violence? If (for example) someone shoves you, is it legitimate to retaliate by taking out your flamethrower (you just happen to carry around - hey, it's a hypothetical!) and incinerating him? Why not, if proportionality doesn't matter?

0
1

[–] rexgao 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Thank you for your response. I am very agree with proportionality limit, I was just not very clear the standard (and eligible people) to judge whether an occasion is proportional or not. I am not familiar with law and I am not a US resident. However, I heard in some states in the US, if a criminal attacks me or other people with a knife, I must use at most as lethal as a knife to defend, instead of a gun. That is why I came up with my mock scenario. Maybe my hearsay is incorrect, but I happen to be very interested in this issue