RE: Anarchy and Compassion
It's precisely the blanket rule of "no coercion" that I am challenging.
You avoided implying the use of force in the hypothetical by using the idea you could help the child be freed without violence. While this is obviously the simplest situation for the future of the child, the question if begged that say the child is freed, should there be no consequences for the abuser? You point out that the agency of the child should be respected. Then, to complicate matters further, what if the child wants to be abused?
I am not arguing for this, but this is the challenge. In this example the challenge from "sensible society" is that a child abuser should be punished.
And btw it's not like I'm expecting answers from you personally in defence of these ideas (or the post author to whom it was originally directed) but these are questions it is obvious to raise, and which should be considered, though perhaps not definitively or easily answered.
The distinction is the initiation of coercive force.
It can be hard to determine who fired first though, and who gets to decide what constitutes such an initiation. In todays world of considering certain form of speech as "violence" it's even more difficult. (btw I'm aware the Daily Wire is not a great source, but you get the point)
I'd like to say also for the record that I am simply having a debate here, this is not an attack, I may have been taken up wrong that I'm messing with you guys 😣
The difficulty in such determination does not negate the distinction the determination provides.
Good point, I accept that. I only think that if you are happy to trust your own judgement making that determination and accept the risk, you will find yourself in potentially deadly disagreement with folks.