Laurence Vance: Is It Okay to Kill?

Found in LibertarianChristians.com

Is it okay to kill? I don’t mean a bug in your house, a snake in your garage, or a deer in the woods. Deer tastes good; you may not know if that snake in your garage is poisonous; and bugs are home invaders.
I mean is it okay to kill a man, a human being, a person? Again, I don’t mean someone trying to kill you, rob your business, rape your wife, harm your children, or break into your house. Killing someone might be perfectly justified in those circumstances if it involves defense against aggression.
Specifically, is it okay to kill someone who has not threatened or committed violence or aggression against you, your family, your friends, your neighborhood, anyone you know, or any American you don’t know?

No? Then –
What if he is not an American?
What if he lives thousands of miles away from America?
What if he adheres to a religion that is different from that of most Americans?
What if he is a darker color than most Americans?
What if he speaks a language that most Americans don’t understand?
What if he has habits that seem peculiar to most Americans?
What if he holds to a political ideology that doesn’t resemble America’s?
What if he smells different than most Americans?
Does someone having one or more of these characteristics alone mean it is okay to kill him?

Please read the rest of the article here .

This was originally posted at LewRockwell.com .

 

10 thoughts on “Laurence Vance: Is It Okay to Kill?

  1. Steve M

    yes if you are actively engaged in self defense, otherwise no.

    The summary execution without judicial review is a criminal act. Having the President of the United States order you to commit a criminal act doesn’t make the act non-criminal.

  2. paulie

    I enjoy his writing as well, but still wondering about an LP connection, other than libertarian ideology in general.

  3. langa

    … still wondering about an LP connection …

    I seem to recall him saying in an interview (with Scott Horton, maybe?) that he was briefly an LP member, but quit because he decided it was a waste of time, although I could be thinking about someone else.

  4. paulie

    If his philosophy is sound does it make a difference if he is a partyarch, a supporter of voting or a supporter of non-voting?

    For IPR purposes, yes.

    The alternative parties we cover represent a wide variety of political philosophies. All of those philosophies have numerous people associated with them who are not associated with those parties, whether those views be libertarian, socialist, ultra-conservative, fascist, or what have you.

    IPR covers alt parties and independent candidates and people associated therewith. If we broaden our focus to any opinion articles by anyone with views similar to any of those parties or candidates, including non-voters and people working within the big two parties, we could easily put up many more articles, but that would make alt party news harder to find. Also, if we make such a change in site policy, we should do so explicitly, and decide on it as a group.

    That’s not to say that opinion articles by people not associated with alt parties are any less interesting or valid, it’s just a matter of site focus.

  5. paulie

    I seem to recall him saying in an interview (with Scott Horton, maybe?) that he was briefly an LP member, but quit because he decided it was a waste of time, although I could be thinking about someone else.

    That would be pertinent information if we keep publishing his articles on IPR. An alt party connection does not have to be current. It would help if he had been in any kind of leadership position such as a candidate, LNC or state committee member while in the LP (“I signed the pledge and sent in $25 once a couple of decades ago, and haven’t considered myself an LP member or voted for them in many years” is a pretty tenuous connection)…but at this point we haven’t established whether he has ever had any LP or alt party connection at all.

  6. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    I always like to find new sources for this site, and I usually try to verify what party someone is in, but I couldn’t find anything either way.
    The rest of Mr. Vance’s articles were libertarian–so I took a chance. So now I know not to include his work, unless we can verify that he is in a third party.

    It’s an excellent article, though. I’m glad some of you like it.

  7. paulie

    I liked it too, but I always try to justify how something fits into IPR subject matter before I post it, regardless of if I like it or not.

    I’m not saying take it down, it’s already here and already has comments, but for the future please try to post only what has a verified alt party connection of some sort.

Leave a Reply