|
Anonymous, the issue was whether there is a threat of violence. By saying 'there is a big difference between illegal coercion imposed by a private minority and legal coercion imposed by democratic majority' you are admitting that there is coercion, and therefore a threat of violence, and are thus conceding the general issue. The entire issue is precisely whether there is a justification of the use of violence, whether its origin is public and legal, or private and illegal. As to whether there is a big difference, those in favour of using violence can be expected to say that there is: 'they would say that, wouldn't they'? In terms of the ethics of using violence however, it is not clear what that difference might be. If 12 men and one woman take a vote on whether to have sex, and the 12 men vote in favour, and the one woman votes against, does that mean that if they have sex with her against her will, it's not rape? There was no coercion? It's not ethically wrong because the use of coercion was sanctioned by the opinion, or the interests, of the majority? So much for the ethics of majoritarian decisions. We libertarians say that the fact of a majority being in favour of the decision does not, and cannot, change the ethics; and it certainly doesn't change the fact of violence into a fact of non-violence. As to legality, this by itself is a circular argument. The most violent and abusive of states have taken care to cover their actions in the mantle of legality. That by itself is incapable of making an unethical use of violence into an ethical use of non-violence. All that majorities and legality do, is change the pragmatics of using violence. They make it more practical. They don't change violence into non-violence, or ethical wrongs into ethical rights. Hrrmph.
| 
