But.............it's a fact that humans act based on their values. So, what dichotomy? It seems a distraction because whether you should or shouldn't do one thing or another, the fact is you will act, and those actions will be based on your values.
This got me thinking about purposeful behavior. Obviously behavior isn't purposeful when you don't control it, for example being on drugs or being asleep or breathing or blinking and so forth. And the degrees to which we control various behaviors are always fluctuating. So is behavior only purposeful when there is absolute control? What about partial control? And yet, our original values derived at first from a series of events we had no control over (the past before, the parents, etc). At best it can be said that we have partial control over our values, and so partial control over our actions. So we merely experience our actions since our values were (and therefore are) beyond our control. The brain just responds to stimuli, so if you can hardly choose the input what makes you think you absolutely control the output? Claiming that you "control" your actions merely because you experience a sensation of a degree of control doesn't seem very robust or rigorous...
Clearly everyone has different circumstances and has developed different cost-benefit calculations as a result. So why should violence (aka "law enforcement") be used against someone whose environment has led them to act differently than you would like?
While I (as well as others that believe in the NAP, I'm sure) believe the world would be a lot better without violence, this would require no one EVER using force on another, even if it is for the satisfaction of some subjective justice (which may as well be called retribution), and would mean mean there wasn't only a belief in the Golden Rule, but also a "turn the other cheek" policy. Being only my humble opinion, this is necessary for true, everlasting peace. It would be full faith that the Creator will provide objective justice, without fail, even if it doesn't satisfy some man's time-preference.
Now that my two cents is put in, I understand the reason behind your question, "So why should violence (aka "law enforcement") be used against someone whose environment has led them to act differently than you would like?"
Then again, anyone that uses violence does so based upon their experience in their environment (according to your premises/conjectures). Therefore, someone that seeks, in their eyes, justice, while in the eyes of their aggressor, revenge, through any sort of force from any man or men is merely being a product of their environment, no? That is, there is no way to objectively "justify" the use of force.
I reiterate, this is merely my opinion, especially based upon the premises of the OP.
The only one worth following is the one who leads... not the one who pulls; for it is not the direction that condemns the puller, it is the rope that he holds.
Then again, anyone that uses violence does so based upon their experience in their environment (according to your premises/conjectures).
Clever of you to point that out. So tired; more later.
Two people watch a movie. Afterwards, one of them says, "I really liked that movie." The other one responds, "I didn't really like it." Which one of them is correct?
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Why is that a situation where one of them is incorrect? One can like a movie while another does not. Neither seems to be claiming that the other is incorrect. Now, if one says it's a good movie and the other says it is not... It still depends on their own values, and thus, their environment and personal experience and perspective.
That's actually my point. The question "Which one of them is correct?" is a trick question, as I see it. Neither one of them is correct in a factual sense, as there's no factuality to the value each of them imputes to his experience - aside from the fact that he imputed a particular value to it. Another way of putting it is that there's no way to deduce or calculate the value of the experience in an objective way.
Without a dispute over the use of property, disagreements like this (movie good/movie bad) don't have any discussion value in the political problem space. Unless you object to the statement of that fact, or the writing of the fact. But that's all you can reasonably object to. Making a person sign a statement that they like it, when they don't, is silly. Nothing changed, but you did force the person to do something with his body that does fall in the realm of the political.
Whether or not a person likes something is their subjective appraisal of a phenomena. The appraisal itself is a fact of existence, but it only enters the world in how it influences action. And it is only through perceived actions that something can be objected to. So, my point is right or wrong is a product OF the preference, the valuation itself is an IS, not an ought.
Where the confusion comes in is that at the individual level there may be flaws of knowledge that play a role in how specific things are valued, primarily in understanding the causal chains created by the action. An example, most of us would probably agree with is that it is almost certainly true that there are flaws in the thinking of a teen who commits suicide. I assume (and I'm guessing it's correct) that for a person to commit suicide they believe that there is no way for any action they take to improve the miserable state they find themselves in, and in this mental dead end, not continuing and gaining relief, though permanent, from the misery would constitute the only reasonable option, and one that becomes preferable to hoping that some miracle (which they no longer believe to be possible) will improve their situation. Now you and I as adults, would argue, that there are significant flaws in the logic, and that the emotions are playing a huge role in driving the thought process, but I don't think you can argue that they don't believe dying is better than continuing as a subjective experience of reality. The proof is in the action.
My point is that we should attack flaws in thinking that influences the preferences. That's where truth statements can be found that can be invalidated. "Life can't get better." For example, if it's their first crush dumped them and they never believe they will find another girl like her. Well, no you won't exactly, BUT if you've met 100 people who you've known sufficiently well to be able to realize an interest and then pursue a relationship the odds are that within the next 100 you meet +/- some number you'll meet another girl who will evoke similar feelings. Another piece of evidence would be that the majority of adults don't marry their first love. etc., etc.
The point of this post is to affirm the preference as inviolate. I believe this is foundational to understanding and supporting individual sovereignty, that preference itself ought to be honored as the inviolable source of human action. The facts (in error or not) which provide substance or weight to support a preference are something that can be argued about as IS statements can be challenged in terms of their truth value. In the case of a priori statements, the question to ask is do these logically consistent statements apply?
The secondary concern is in how the impact of your actions interferes with and disrupts the preferences of others played out in action. What they prefer is not at issue, who's preference has the right of way in a dispute IS something that rises out of values and knowledge. Societies common narrative provides the substrate from which the collective "we" judge who's preference takes precedence in a dispute. The accuracy of the truth statements that make up the narratives are absolutely fair game for discussion and refutation, but the actual values (like human life or honesty or property or environmental protections) are not. I can't change the fact that you love and want to preserve the environment, all I can do is chase down errors in the knowledge you use to support that preference.
I hope this dichotomy becomes both clearer and the divide becomes cleaner. I can't tell you you're wrong to want something. I can attack assumptions if they are truth statements, but normative statements about your own personal ethics or values or preference are facts of existence to me.