This is one of the first times I'm actually fulfilling my initial purpose for this blog, which is to talk about stuff that I can't talk about on ZS. I respect ZS's rules and understand why they are in place, but sometimes, some things, need to be addressed directly in the survival community without mincing words or using cute metaphors.
The main thrust of AP's example was as follows.
A nasty period of violence breaks out. Rule of law is gone. You are convinced that it is morally wrong to initiate violence. You receive clear information indicating that tonight, a mob/gang that is sheltered at a certain house plans to ransack and destroy your neighborhood. Mobs are not kind to women and children, like those in your care.
Do you preempt and remove the threat, risking your conscience and possibly your soul?
What we are debating, then, is the relative morality of a preemptive strike on a known threat to your family's safety.
Don't waste time hemming and hawing about how no intel is 100% or how you can always flee or anything else. This is a hypothetical experiment, so just think about it as it is presented. You know people are going to ransack and burn your neighborhood 24 hours from now, and you know where they are hiding out right now.
For me, the answer is simple. I am of the tribe of Scumfuck, and fuck all other motherfuckers. If I know, I mean actually know that they are coming, I see no reason to wait for them. I would much rather catch them by surprise; it increases my chances of winning and I cannot afford to lose. The decision for me is a strategic and not a moral one. But I don't wrangle in my heart over labels like "Self Defense" "Zero Aggression Principle" "No More Fort Sumters"-these are doctrinate points and I don't worry too much about doctrine, I just need to keep my people alive, at any cost to myself up to and including eternal damnation.
But it seems like a question a lot of people should be asking themselves.