I can’t see how you can’t see that you’re caught in a self-contradiction that invalidates your ethical argument.

It's no use appealing to such terms as "excessive" or "reasonable", because the issue is precisely whether it's excessive or reasonable in the first place to use force or threats to get what you want, to take other people's property, to forcibly prevent people from engaging in consensual activities, or to force them to engage in non-consensual activities.

You can’t just sprinkle holy water blessed by the State on the ethical problem and make it go away.

If you say you believe only in the "reasonable" not “excessive” use of force, then since the law considers the use of handcuffs, tazers and guns reasonable to force people to obey - otherwise why are the cops carrying and using them when it’s a crime for you and me? - then you're admitting that you believe in electrocuting and shooting people to force them to submit and obey on a double standard.

But if you say you don't believe in that, then you're contradicting yourself if you don't renounce your political philosophy. It is nothing but a red herring, factually untrue, to suggest it's built on self-defence. It’s built on enforcing the policies and laws you support, which are the expression of your political opinion. Admit it.

You've got nothing. It's neither fish nor foul.

"Quite the opposite, in fact – by giving people less reason to resort to violence and more reason not to, it reduces the total amount of violence."

1. Obviously if the behaviour you're forcibly overriding is consensual, you are *increasing*, not reducing the total amount of violence - THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT.
2. All you're arguing is that your support of aggressive violence is for some supposed, alleged higher social good. But there is no higher social good than not aggressively attacking people for peaceable and productive behaviour!

Your simultaneous affirming and disclaiming the use and threat of aggressive violence makes your entire argument an invalid, self-contradictory jumble; why can’t you see that?

You’ve tried denying violence is violence when the government does it. But not even the government agrees with that.

You’ve tried alleging that it’s all for self-defence. But that is just factually false. Police can and do legally use weapons to *initiate* force when people don’t submit and obey, and to *overcome* self-defensive actions their aggression provokes, by escalating more aggression.

You’re tried limiting your support to what is “reasonable” and not “excessive”. But this is only circular. Either you admit electrocuting or shooting people is excessive, in which case you lose the argument because you say you reject that; or you deny it’s excessive, in which case you lose the argument, because you say you reject that.

And you’ve tried alleging that it’s necessary for a higher moral purpose, which is moral nonsense: The whole purpose of rules of just conduct, of ethics, is so that “might is right” will *not* be the operating principle.

And still you try to squirm out of conceding what you can’t defend, never once conceding that you are were wrong in saying you don’t support aggressive violence, never once wondering why your argument finds you contradicting yourself and supporting violence you find morally abhorrent, never once wondering why my argument avoids self-contradictions *and* supports more peaceable, social and productive behaviour. And then you’ve got the vanity and gall to accuse me of lacking critical inquiry!

Thus
a) you have proved my point that socialism has no rational basis
b) your denial that you support aggressive violence to force people to submit or obey is factually and logically false
c) your economic hypothesis of the superior governmental economic efficiencies you allege, depend on the use of force that you either deny exists, or say you reject
d) quite apart from that, you have made no argument establishing any necessary relation of inputs to outputs and so have made no rational argument about efficiency.

I'm not misrepresenting you. You have completely failed to justify partial socialism, or renounce it, and instead of trying to personalise the argument to me, perhaps you should think why?

Brought up by strongly Left parents, I was saved from radicalism by reading Animal Farm. it should be required reading in all schools.

Jardine,
"I can’t see how you can’t see that you’re caught in a self-contradiction that invalidates your ethical argument. "
Yes, you do seem incapable of understanding all but the most simplistic arguments. I guess that's why Mises appeals to you so much!

"It's no use appealing to such terms as 'excessive' or 'reasonable', because the issue is precisely whether it's excessive or reasonable in the first place to use force or threats to get what you want, to take other people's property, to forcibly prevent people from engaging in consensual activities, or to force them to engage in non-consensual activities. "
So now you're redefining the issue to make my argument look circular!
You seem to want to treat property rights as essential but ignore most other rights. Why?

"You can’t just sprinkle holy water blessed by the State on the ethical problem and make it go away. "
But I can treat the state as a special case. Law, including taxation law, is the basis of every advanced society, and it does require enforcement.

"If you say you believe only in the 'reasonable' not 'excessive' use of force, then since the law considers the use of handcuffs, tazers and guns reasonable to force people to obey - otherwise why are the cops carrying and using them when it’s a crime for you and me?"
Because the job law enforcement puts cops in a situation where they're likely to need to use them in self defence or the defence of others.

"then you're admitting that you believe in electrocuting and shooting people to force them to submit and obey on a double standard. "
As I said last time, I don't support any right of the police to shoot or electrocute people except in self defence or the defence of others.

"Obviously if the behaviour you're forcibly overriding is consensual, you are *increasing*, not reducing the total amount of violence - THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT."
Are you seriously telling me you equate legislation with violence even when no actual violence occurs?

Think about it! You may change your mind.

Aidan

“Yes, you do seem incapable of understanding all but the most simplistic arguments.”

Ad hominem, circularity = irrational twice over.

“So now you're redefining the issue to make my argument look circular!”
Unsupported (dishonest) allegation that I redefined the issue, misrepresentation = irrational four times now.

I didn’t redefine the issue. You said you don’t support the use of aggressive violence to force people to submit and obey, and now you either admit it and contradict yourself, or deny it and you’re lying.

[Tax]… does require enforcement.’
Question-begging, self-contradiction = irrational 6 times so far in the one post. Situation normal.

“Because the job law enforcement puts cops in a situation where they're likely to need to use them in self defence or the defence of others.”

Dishonest evasion, circularity.

Irrational 8 times in the one post.

The question is when they’re NOT using it for self-defence or the defence of others.

Are they justified in electrocuting or shooting people to force them to submit and obey?

Spare us your circular evasions and answer the real question, not your fake re-definition.
Cops don't enforce laws in self-defence and you know it.

You're unable to defend your ethical or economic claims, so you just go round and round like the village idiot pretending that the state doesn't enforce law and policy by initiating or escalating aggressive force. No-one can be as dumb as you're pretending to be. You're just lying and it's as simple as that.

“Are you seriously telling me you equate legislation with violence even when no actual violence occurs?”

Are you seriously telling me that you equate rape with making love even when “no actual violence” occurs, only threats of violence that will be carried out if the victim doesn’t submit?

Got that ethical justification of shooting and threatening to shoot people to force them into obedience yet fellah?
Got that rational proof of the economic efficiency of destroying capital to make society richer yet?

Unfortunately your childish intellectual dishonesty and moral idiocy has only managed to prove what socialism is really made of.

"You seem to want to ... ignore most other rights. Why?"

There's no such thing as a right to attack and rape people, remember? Idiot?