Right to Life

[source]

The government has the exclusive power to use force in purpose of defense and preservation of rights of its citizens. This means that one does not have the right to go about and deal justice.

In the army, every soldier is under orders. Any activities outside of what the orders say is the soldier's sole responsibility. How long do the defensive actions take? As long as the enemy is capable of and intent on attacking further.

[Yaniv]

In the scope of initiation vs. retaliation, can a person be hold responsible for initiation of force by a collective to which he belongs?

1. Consider a peasant living under an islamic tyranny. He is clearly a victim, supposing he had no oppurtunity to overthrow his tyrant.

Should such a man get killed by US troops, would you consider that killing an initiation of force or retaliation?

Surely the US led attack is a retaliation against terrorist attacks, but who exactly is responsible for the terrorist attack?

2. Consider a producer living in the US, under the tyranny of the anti-trust regulators. Such regulation is clearly an initiation of force and thus immoral.

Whom can the producer morally retaliate against? The regulator itself? the Congress? any US citizen?

[source]

Should such a man get killed by US troops, would you consider that killing an initiation of force or retaliation?

Retaliation.

Whom can the producer morally retaliate against?

It is, in normal laissez-faire circumstances, the purpose of the government to protect the producer. In this abnormal circumstances that prevail today, it is the moral right of the producer to overthrow the government in pure self-defense, because it is them who violate his rights.

[Yaniv]

Why can US troops retaliate against any random peasant while a producer cannot retaliate against any random US citizen?

Both the peasant and the US citizen are responsible for initiation of force by a collective to which they belong -

A peasant is responsible for the establishment of a terrorist regime just as any US citizen is responsible for his state regulators.

Regardless of whether the actions desribed are initiatory or retaliatory, what sets them apart?

[source]

Why can US troops retaliate against any random peasant while a producer cannot retaliate against any random US citizen?

It's not retaliation about "random" peasants - only those who stand in the army's way. Read the last pages of Atlas Shrugged. Dagny Taggart killed the soldier after she explained that it is his body that's barring her way to her goal. In the same way does the soldier get to retaliate about a peasant that stand in his way.

Both the peasant and the US citizen are responsible for initiation of force by a collective to which they belong - A peasant is responsible for the establishment of a terrorist regime just as any US citizen is responsible for his state regulators.

Not necessarily. In any case, it is always better to overthrow the government without walking over corpses. At war, defeating the enemy isn't always possible without bloodshed.

Regardless of whether the actions desribed are initiatory or retaliatory, what sets them apart?

What sets apart action and reaction?

[CapitalistPigDog]

Source, I would argue a few of the points you just made.....

It's not retaliation about "random" peasants - only those who stand in the army's way. Read the last pages of Atlas Shrugged. Dagny Taggart killed the soldier after she explained that it is his body that's barring her way to her goal. In the same way does the soldier get to retaliate about a peasant that stand in his way

This does not make killing the peasent right or wrong. Not the differances in the following examples.

Dagny shooting a guard to free the unjustly imprisiond and tortured Galt

VS.

A man shooting you to get into your home and rob you blind.

In a case of a soldier shooting a peasent, it becoms a case of the ends justiying the means. The goal of the soldier or attacking force needs to be analyzed and evaluated in a moral way. If the goal is correct, I.E capturing terrorists, then its a good goal, thus shooting the peasent was right. If the soldier shot the peasent because the peasent is between the soldier and a known terrorist, I have no problem with that (although I would question using lethal force as a first response if there were other options available, but I understand that in fire fights and combat situations, you dont have time to decide if you should shoot or find an alternate means of subduing the opponent)

But if the soldier shoot the peasent for plain ol sadistic jollies, thats morally wrong.

You also asked what the distinction was between Action and reaction is......This should be pretty easy.

You act, I react.....or vice versa. Action is the initial trigger, reaction, is the response.

I.E You throw a ball to me (action) I catch it (reaction).

[source]

This does not make killing the peasent right or wrong. Not the differances in the following examples.

Dagny shooting a guard to free the unjustly imprisiond and tortured Galt

VS.

A man shooting you to get into your home and rob you blind.

I honestly don't know what you are talking about. I was talking to Yaniv, and we have established that the soldiers are fighting a retaliatory war. This means that they were first invaded. Dagny shooting a guard, who may have had nothing to do with imprisoning guard, or even knowing what he's imprisoned for, is therefore the same as the soldier of an invaded country shooting a peasant of the invader country who stands in the soldiers way to freeing his country from the invaders.

In a case of a soldier shooting a peasent, it becoms a case of the ends justiying the means.

What makes the act justified is that the peasant is in the way.

But if the soldier shoot the peasent for plain ol sadistic jollies, thats morally wrong.

We are only searching for cases in which it is morally right to do it, which is why I didn't even bother mentioning when it is wrong.

You also asked what the distinction was between Action and reaction is......This should be pretty easy.

You act, I react.....or vice versa. Action is the initial trigger, reaction, is the response.

I.E You throw a ball to me (action) I catch it (reaction).

Well, thanks for answering my question, but I knew the answer. What I tried to imply by it was that the answer was analogous to Yaniv's question:

Regardless of whether the actions desribed are initiatory or retaliatory, what sets them apart?

(although I would question using lethal force as a first response if there were other options available, but I understand that in fire fights and combat situations, you dont have time to decide if you should shoot or find an alternate means of subduing the opponent)

Certainly what's morally wrong or right depends on what the situation is. Is the peasant capable of attacking? Is he reaching for a weapon, is he trying to attack? Does he want to surrender, does he curl up in a corner and begs for his life? Does he just ignore the soldiers or throws rocks and molotovs at them? A soldier must be able to decide whether that peasant is an innocent civilian or a (potential) threat and act accordingly, and this must happen before he himself gets killed.