Yes, I see nothing wrong with the concepts of self-defense, and of punishing people for actions that many or most people consider 'wrong'.

I refer people to my AP essay, Part 9, where I referred to a public communication between Albert Einstein and Sigmund Freud.

As I said, in part:

"Interestingly enough, when I first started thinking about the idea that I would later term "Assassination Politics," I was not intending to design a system that had the capability to eliminate war and militaries. What I was targeting, primarily, was political tyranny. By my standards, that included not merely totalitarian governments but also ones that many of us would consider far more benign, in particular the Federal government of the United States of America, "my" country. Only after I had thought of the fundamental principle of allowing large numbers of citizens to do away with unwanted politicians was I "forced," by my work up to that point, to address the issue of the logical consequences of the operation of that system, which (by "traditional" ways of thinking) would leave this country without leaders, or a government, or a military, in a world with many threats. I was left with the same fundamental problem that's plagued the libertarian analysis of forming a country in a world dominated by non-libertarian states: It was not clear how such a country could defend itself from aggression if it could not force its citizens to fight."

"Only then did I realize that if this system could work within a single country, it could also work worldwide, eliminating threats from outside the country as well as corrupt politicians within. And shortly thereafter, I realized that not only could this occur, such a spread was absolutely inevitable, by the very nature of modern communications across the Internet, or older technologies such as the telephone, fax, or even letters written on paper. In short, no war need ever occur again, because no dispute would country he intended to war with, obviously, but he would also draw the ire of citizens within his own country who either didn't want to pay the taxes to support a wasteful war, or lose their sons and daughters in pointless battles, or for that matter were simply opposed to participating in the aggression. Together, all these potentially-affected peoples would unite (albeit quite anonymously, even from each other) and destroy the tyrant before he had the opportunity to make the war."

"I was utterly astonished. Seemingly, and without intending to do so, I had provided a solution for the "war" problem that has plagued mankind for millennia. But had I? I really don't know. I do know, however, that very few people have challenged me on this particular claim, despite what would normally appear to be its vast improbability. While some of the less perceptive critics of "Assassination Politics" have accused me of eliminating war and replace it with something that will end up being worse, it is truly amazing that more people haven't berated me for not only believing in the impossible, but also believing that the impossible is now actually inevitable!"

[end of partial quote]

On Saturday, November 16, 2019, 10:48:02 AM PST, Kurt Buff - GSEC, GCIH <kurt.buff@gmail.com> wrote:

What is justice?

If it is not visiting upon those who do wrong the same wrongs that
they commit, what is it?

Kurt

On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 11:38 AM coderman <coderman@protonmail.com> wrote:
>
> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> On Saturday, November 16, 2019 6:16 PM, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ...
>
> Not clear who says this, but let's remember that "murder" is simply a killing that the government declares is illegal. If the attackers at Waco (the Feds) had fired first, which we know happened, the Branch Davidians who shot back in self-defense...would have been labelled as guilty of murder! Merely for self-defense.
>
>
> a false dichotomy; it would be better if no one was killed at all!
>
>
> Except you don't even attempt to quantify the amount of killing that would be involved in these two hypothetical situations. I wrote my AP essay about two months prior to the OKC bombing on March 19, 1995. Later, I frequently pointed out that if the choice is between killing 168 'innocent' people who just happened to be in a building two years later, hundreds of miles away from Waco, and killing (for example) the top 30-40 Feds responsible for Ruby Ridge and Waco, what should an intelligent, well-meaning person choose? The fact that the latter choice was then not possible doesn't mean that it cannot be compared as a moral choice.
>
>
> again, false dichotomy; these are not the only two possibilities - better to not kill anyone!
>
>
>
> Also, you can claim you are merely saying "better to err towards never killing", but that doesn't mean that nobody is dying!
>
>
> if this is about universal healthcare, then i agree: people are needlessly dying without being explicitly murdered, and we should fix this too! ;)
>
>
>
> Sure they are, the people you have chosen to say should not have the ability to defend themselves. You can morally choose to be a pacifist for yourself; I suggest that you cannot force other people to make that choice for themselves.
>
>
> i agree. i cannot force anyone. i can only highlight the fallacy of using murder to right wrongs. expedient? sure. but call it vengeance, not justice nor moral.
>
> best regards,
>