Initiating Force

Question: Is it ever okay to initiate force? For example, what if I think my neighbor's tree might conceivably fall on my house, or what if I believe that Iraq is developing nuclear weapons and might attack me? What if I perceive a threat where others do not?

Answer: I think the solution lies in the somewhat vague-sounding idea of "clear and present danger."

It is against Objectivist principles to employ force without proportionate provocation. Generally, this provocation is the initiation of force by someone else against one's self or one's property. This accords with the principle that in normal circumstances, one should not initiate the use of force against others.

There are cases of threatened or prospective use of force which also justify one's use of force in self-defense. This principle must be employed with caution, but there is an extensive tradition in law developing and defining its limits. Such a case might be someone threatening verbally to do one harm, like a stalker. Or it might be one of the cases you mention. If the danger is sufficiently clear and substantial, then one is justified in acting in one's own defense. But again, this principle should be employed cautiously.

The case of Iraq is somewhat different. First, the Iraqi regime is not a just regime. Second, it has violated the terms of the Gulf War ceasefire. Third, it has sponsored attacks on American civilians (well, one civilian at least, Geo. Bush senior). For these reasons the U.S. would not be unjustified in overthrowing the regime and/or enforcing compliance with the cease-fire terms. Of course, there are also reasons to think that the regime is developing weapons it might well use (given its track record) against American citizens. And this last reason fits the "clear and present danger" rationale in form, assuming the charge has substance (which I believe is the case, given what I have heard from knowledgeable experts).

spiderID=1247

‍