At what point does the possibility or certainty of innocent deaths rule out the option of using force to combat a threat? For example, in wartime (even assuming an anarcho-capitalist context) are only soldiers appropriate targets for attack? What about the factory supplying their weapons? What about the convoy on its way to delivering the weapons from the factory to the front lines?
It seems clear that if the non-initiation of force principle is taken in a certain way, it virtually assures that someone who initiates force and then hides among innocents could never be brought to justice (i.e. the issue of human shields). It seems that in certain cases, if the aggressor poses a grave threat, and that killing innocents was necessary to destroying him, then not taking that action would be more harmful and would ultimately endanger more peoples' rights than would be if action was taken. How is a balance to be struck between, on the one hand, not hurting innocents and, on the other, to be able to effectively bring aggressors to justice?
Thanks,
Brutus 2.0
I think all avenues of resolution should be exhausted before resorting to tactics that could result in collateral damage. Once there, however, it's really just about best judgment: how would the potential loss of lives now compare to the potential loss of lives later if the aggressor is left alone?
Life and reality are neither logical nor illogical; they are simply given. But logic is the only tool available to man for the comprehension of both.—Ludwig von Mises
Life and reality are neither logical nor illogical; they are simply given. But logic is the only tool available to man for the comprehension of both.