Since young our parents taught us not to pick a fight at school
and not to beat up a person for nothing, right? And when a fight
broke out between two person, the teacher will always demand to
know who started it first right? So in general the initiation of
force is wrong. Now take this logic and apply to this situation,
lets say this man made a bomb. Did he initiated force upon us? No.
And you wanted to put him in jail? Yes (based on your "prediction"
that he will use the bomb to harm somebody) Did you initiated force
on him? Yes (Restricting his freedom to move freely, forcing him to
stay in the cell) So who initiated force first? So who is wrong? By
punishing him first you are essentially "beating up a person for
nothing". A bomb is not a concrete evidence to show he is guilty.
The bomb is just a tool. He can even bring the bomb to a crowded
place and still not guilty as he can choose not to press the
trigger at the last moment.
I understand that your whole idea is based on pre-emptive strike,
to take him out before he takes us out. But without concrete
evidence that he will take us out we can't just take him out. Its
just like the Iraq war where bush believed that Iraq have WMD and
they are going to use them in the end not even a single WMD was
found. Is it justified? New theories need to be confirmed through
physical experiments not thought experiments
