Retribution vs. Self defense

If someone stole your bike, you can't punish him by shooting him. This wouldn't fit the crime. You are just entitled to a compensation. However if someone is in the process of stealing your bike, you have the right to shoot him in order to stop him. Why do you think in the second case strong physical force is justified while in the first case it is not?

 

Eugene:

 you have the right to shoot him in order to stop him.

only looney anarchists believe in this. You don't have such right at all (not mentioning that rights are just principles of peaceful social interaction). If someone is stealing, you are only allowed to use force to stop them. Killing could be justified if the thief was pointing a gun at you while stealing a bike or smething.

I think if no other means can stop the robbery, you have the right to hurt the thief badly.

Yes, maybe you are right, but that's a problematic issue, because you'll still have to bear the consequences if the judge or whatever that will be in Libertopia decides that you used too "inappropriate force". I mean, you are responsible for your actions and to mindlessly shoot a criminal just because you thought there is no other way isn't proper way to live in free society.

 

Libertopia is not wild wild west, that's my point.

I certainly would not say that if you catch a kid trying to steal your bike you can shoot him to stop the theft (perhaps he’s getting away and you can only shoot him to stop him). Immediate self-defense is, as I see it, subject to the very same constrains as retribution: proportionality. If general terms: if you cannot do it in retribution later on, you cannot do it in immediate self-defense either.

The issue with immediate self-defense is only that you do not have all the information you may need, and that uncertainty must be factored in. So if a burglar is in your home in the middle of the night, you’d probably be entitled to shot him because it is reasonable to assume that he’s armed. But a kid stealing a bike? I don’t think that it would be reasonable to assume he’s armed and dangerous. If he, after being surprised, pulls what at the time seemed to be a gun, than sure you can cop him right there. It’s all a matter of what seemed a proportional response to a reasonable person.

I agree with what Merlin wrote. I'd like to add that shooting someone can easily lead to his death, even if the intention wasn't to kill him outright. In the context of someone stealing my bike, I'd hardly say that shooting him is appropriate, even to stop the theft.

I think if no other means can stop the robbery, you have the right to hurt the thief badly.

Yes, but by the very same principle you can shoot him after he has seemingly completed the robbery by taking off with your bike if there is no other way of getting your bike back.

Why do you think in the second case strong physical force is justified while in the first case it is not?

Because you're conflating defense and retribution. By the time you're thinking about what punishment is appropriate you have already gotten your bike back or been compensated for its loss. This (and only this) ended the robbery.

While the robbery is still taking place, however, you are in the phase of defense. And as no one may force you to let go of your rightful property and accept a loss if a more extreme means of defense would let you preserve it, you are free to escalate your means of defense until one that will work and let you keep (recapture) what is yours.

In the context of someone stealing my bike, I'd hardly say that shooting him is appropriate, even to stop the theft.

It isn't appropriate because if you were actually in a position to shoot the kid you can also simply ask around who he was and go tell his parents who will give you your bike back or pay you for it. It isn't appropriate because a less extreme means of defending your property that will work almost certainly exists.

Obviously there's also the chance something will ultimately get in the way of getting your bike back with these less extreme means, but who exactly is going to gamble with their life over their bicycle on this possibility?

Good points, Marko, and I certainly agree with them. In fact, I agreed with them before you posted them. :P

Eugene:

However if someone is in the process of stealing your bike, you have the right to shoot him in order to stop him.

Do you?

Merlin:

The issue with immediate self-defense is only that you do not have all the information you may need, and that uncertainty must be factored in.

You hit the heart of the difference right there.

 

I think I agree with Marko on this.

You can escalate the use of force each time the previous efforts did not produce results. So if there is really no other way to return your bike, you can even kill the robber. If you tried to persuade him and he didn't return the bike, then you tried to take the bike by force but couldn't because he hired armed guards to guard the bike, you can eventually use whatever force is necessary to get your property back.

However retribution is completely different. It is not defense of your property.

I really don't think that's what Marko said.

Eugene:

If someone stole your bike, you can't punish him by shooting him. This wouldn't fit the crime. You are just entitled to a compensation. However if someone is in the process of stealing your bike, you have the right to shoot him in order to stop him. Why do you think in the second case strong physical force is justified while in the first case it is not?

You have the right to use the minimum amount of force needed to prevent your bike from being stolen. Most courts would hold that shooting someone stealing a bike is definitely non-commensurate and goes too far and becomes a case of murder. Because the thief is not threatening your life by stealing a bike, so you cannot make it a matter of life and death.

Now, if the thief is stealing your insulin and you're on a desert island, that's another matter.

only looney anarchists believe in this

I don't know any looney anarchists that advocate that.  I do know a few looney statists who believe it is ok to use excessive force against brown people for non-threatening trespass or other instances of using excessive force that do not involve self defense.

So according to you the thief can continue steal my things, move them into his house and put armed guards around the house until I am left with nothing?

Because that's clearly what he said...

Eugene:

So according to you the thief can continue steal my things, move them into his house and put armed guards around the house until I am left with nothing?

That's not what Live_Free_Or_Die said. You've knocked down a strawman.

In any case, my argument is that you should use the minimal force necessary to prevent the theft. If nothing else works except killing the thief, then you have the right to kill him, even if he steals your bike. If you think otherwise then please explain how the scenario I presented above with armed guards can be solved.

Eugene:

So according to you the thief can continue steal my things, move them into his house and put armed guards around the house until I am left with nothing?

You can use enough force, on the spot, to regain your property and no more, certainly not lethal force. It is the commensurate force doctrine. If the thief then attacks you, you can use enough force to put down their attack and defend yourself. A direct attack on you has a lot more leeway than an item being stolen because an attack on you can very easily be life-threatening, the bike stolen cannot be.

At that point you need to bring the law into effect to get your stuff back. Unlike the anarchists, I accept a role for law enforcement and courts of law. In an anarchist society, yeah, he would steal your stuff, put up a guard and you'd have no resource. In a min-cap republic, where laws are enforced, his guard would be invalidated and his house forced to give up the stolent goods.

You've pointed out one of the major flaws of anarchism, but not of the kind of society I would choose to live in, where individual rights are enforced by a legal organization. As such, your bike would be returned to you by responsive coercion, and processed by objective law.

I really don't think that's what Marko said.

No, he got it right.

In a min-cap republic, where laws are enforced, his guard would be invalidated and his house forced to give up the stolent goods.

It's good that you should reveal you are a "minarchist". Else I may have wasted time on you.

Marko:

In a min-cap republic, where laws are enforced, his guard would be invalidated and his house forced to give up the stolent goods.

It's good that you should reveal you are a "minarchist". Else I may have wasted time on you.

I am not a "minarchist" which is why I did not use that term. I am a minimum-government capitalist. It's a new term, since I refuse to ever call myself an anarchist. What I accept as minimum government is much more than the minarchs are willing to accept. Such as a place for law, courts, military, and police. But I think the gov should do no more than that, should be limited just to the enforcement of individual rights and no more.

Eugene:

In any case, my argument is that you should use the minimal force necessary to prevent the theft. If nothing else works except killing the thief, then you have the right to kill him, even if he steals your bike.

That's not an argument. It's just an assertion.

Eugene:

If you think otherwise then please explain how the scenario I presented above with armed guards can be solved.

What do you consider to be a "solution"?

Marko:

No, he got it right.

Maybe I'm confused then. When do you think it's legitimate to kill the bike thief in order to get your bike back?

When that's the minimal amount of force required to get it back.

Suppose it's a bubble gum. When killing a bubble gum thief is justified, Marko?

When that's the minimal amount of force required to get it back.

Would you in turn answer, why can anyone place a demand on me to forsake my stolen property should the property be sufficiently value-less, or should recapturing it take too much force? How that doesn't involve arbitrariness, and why that isn't Tolstoyanism? 

Assuming killing someone is worse than raping them, is it OK to defend against rape with lethal force when the rapist does not leave you with any other way? Can you explain why the same principle does not apply when a bubble gum thief does not permit you any other way of recapturing it?

Assuming killing is worse than trespassing, how come we make movies that portray resistance fighters who shoot occupying soldiers in a sympathetic light? Isn't the resistance way out of line?

Okay Marko, I think I understand you better now.

If someone steals my bike, and proceeds to threaten lethal force against me in my attempt to retrieve it, I'd be justified in using lethal force against him to get my bike back. Does that sound like what you're saying?

Marko:

When that's the minimal amount of force required to get it back.

The same amount of force used to steal it, or just enough to regain your property. You can stop them, tackle them, physically take your bike back, but you should not use a weapon and certainly not deadly force.

If they escalate the situation, that's different.

Marko:

Would you in turn answer, why can anyone place a demand on me to forsake my stolen property should the property be sufficiently value-less, or should recapturing it take too much force?

I don't work in hypotheticals. Propose an actual situation.

The principle of justice is represented by the scales, because it is an apt metaphor for commensurate force. The punishment must fit the crime, they say. Well, so too must the amount of force used be commensurate with the initial transgression. You wouldn't call the SWAT team on a kid who stole a pack of bubblegum. Neither should you murder someone who stole some bubblegum. A bike is just more multiple of bubblegum. Losing a bike is not life-threatening, generally. So you should not put the thief's life at risk as a function of getting that bike back.

The courts generally have accorded it a crime to use a vastly larger amount of force to recover a stolen value. So that, if someone steals gum from you, and you beat him to within an inch of his life, you have commited a crime, because simply taking the gum back is what was commensurate, the beating was going above and beyond recovering your value into new-crime territory.

Marko:

How that doesn't involve arbitrariness, and why that isn't Tolstoyanism?

The idea of commensurate force is an attempt to avoid giving you carte blanche the minute your rights have been violated, no matter how miniscule the violation. You're basically arguing (absurdum) that you can murder someone to get a stick of stolen gum back.

As for Tolstoyanism, you'll have to define that for us and how it applies to this issue; I won't bother guessing at your take.

Marko:

Assuming killing someone is worse than raping them, is it OK to defend against rape with lethal force when the rapist does not leave you with any other way?

Of course. If someone attempts to over power you, that is to put you completely in their power, giving them the power of life and death over you when they do over power you, then you can use lethal force to regain control of your person.

Marko:

Can you explain why the same principle does not apply when a bubble gum thief does not permit you any other way of recapturing it?

By doing what, eating it? In that case, they would owe you compensation for the stolen good, plus the hassle of litigating it and the aggravation. That -is- commensurate compensation, in a case where the good cannot be recaptured.

Marko:

Assuming killing is worse than trespassing, how come we make movies that portray resistance fighters who shoot occupying soldiers in a sympathetic light? Isn't the resistance way out of line?

Occupying soldiers, assuming it's an aggressive occupation not a legitimate one, are attempting to overpower an entire nation. Thus resistance is legitimate.

However, if the point of the occupation is to throw a tyrannical government off the people, the people aren't likely to attack the troops, not in their interest. The tyrannical government will, obviously.

Americans don't invade in order to take over and rule, we do so to uphold pinciples like freedom and individual rights. That's why we make movies portraying our soldiers as the good guys, and people invading the US as the bad guys :P

If someone steals my bike, and proceeds to threaten lethal force against me in my attempt to retrieve it, I'd be justified in using lethal force against him to get my bike back. Does that sound like what you're saying?

No, that's not it. That is how it would go down in most real life cases, but it has nothing to do with the principle itself. There is no requirement for your legitimate attempts to retrieve your bubble gum to lead you into mortal danger before you can use lethal force. Whether your life is threatened has nothing to do with it. The only relevant question is, is there another — less forceful — way for you to recapture your property, or not?

Theorethically there could be a foreign military occupation which would shun the use of lethal force, and rely on imprisoning and tasering alone. Such an occupation would not threaten lethal force against the resistance and offering resistance to such an occupation would not bring your bare life in danger. Are you saying in such circumstance the resistance would be wrong in using lethal force against the occupation, even if it were in fact the case that nothing less could bring an end to it?

Are you saying a rape victim is justified in stopping an ongoing rape with lethal force only if attempt to resist it via non-lethal means would bring it into mortal danger? Do you think a victim of rape unable to stop the rape with non-lethal means, but being raped by a rapist who shuns lethal force along with threats of thereof and against whom it is then perfectly safe from the position of bare life to offer non-lethal resistance, should subject itself to rape and would not be justified in using lethal force to stop it? Or is it in fact OK for her to use lethal force though none is threatened against her?

I don't work in hypotheticals. Propose an actual situation.

If you click on a post's "replied on" link it will take you to the post the post whose link you clicked on is a reply to.

Marko:

No, that's not it. That is how it would go down in most real life cases, but it has nothing to do with the principle itself. There is no requirement for your legitimate attempts to retrieve your bubble gum to lead you into mortal danger before you can use lethal force. Whether your life is threatened has nothing to do with it. The only relevant question is, is there another — less forceful — way for you to recapture your property, or not?

Okay, I think I see now. If I now understand it correctly, it's a subtle change to the proportionality principle advocated by Rothbard et al.

Going with MaikU's example, say a kid steals a pack of bubblegum from a store. The store manager summarily shoots him in the head as he runs off, killing him instantly. The legal question then would be whether the store manager's lethal actions were necessary for him to retrieve the bubblegum. I, for one, would certainly conclude that they weren't, and I think you'd conclude the same thing.

Come to think of it, isn't this notion essentially the same as estoppel? If I steal your TV, and you in turn break into my house and retrieve it, I could well be estopped from suing you for the damages you caused to my house, if the break-in was considered necessary for retrieving the TV.

When it comes to lethal force, I prefer incapacitating force over that, as incapacitating force is not necessarily lethal.

Rothbard applies proportionality to punishment, not defense. I'm not in conflict with him as you claim.

Marko:

Rothbard applies proportionality to punishment, not defense. I'm not in conflict with him as you claim.

From The Ethics of Liberty, chapter 12, which is titled "Self-Defense":

  How extensive is a man’s right of self-defense of person and property? The basic answer must be: up to the point at which he begins to infringe on the property rights of someone else. For, in that case, his “defense” would in itself constitute a criminal invasion of the just property of some other man, which the latter could properly defend himself against.

 

Thanks. I stand corrected.

I actually must have known this seeing I used the exact same example here but somehow forgot about it over time.

Mind you I don't so much think there is contradiction as I think Rothbard didn't pan out his views in great enough detail, he didn't envision or tackle situations I talk about.

I think that ultimately the best explanation is hidden in the question of who created the situation in question. If I create a situation where you may either take a beating or shoot me in the chest, I can not complain when you opt to shoot me.

In reality I effectively shot myself because I as an aggressor have no ground to demand you take a beating to spare me a bullet to the chest.

In fact I can not demand any sacrifice from you on my behalf. And so I can not complain even if you shoot me over the tiniest thing you have a right to, if it was in fact me who created the situation where you either shot me, or forsake your rights to a tiny extent.

There can be no obligation to let go of your property in favor of an aggressor, ever.

I think Rothbard should have been clearer in that chapter.  But I think his views come out to this:

1) There must be proportion in self-defense

2) There must be proportion in punishment

So, for lethal force to be used, the situation must escalate to a point where it would be justified.  Rothbard lays out what he thinks the criteria should be in that chapter as well.

Marko:

In fact I can not demand any sacrifice from you on my behalf. And so I can not complain even if you shoot me over the tiniest thing you have a right to, if it was in fact me who created the situation where you either shot me, or forsake your rights to a tiny extent.

Could you explain that a little more?  If I understand you correctly, it would seem that you are arguing for a maximalist or propertarian position, which is something Rothbard was dead against (also stated in chapter 12, maybe chapter 13 if not 12).

What do you mean by "take a beating"?  Nobody said they have to fight you.  If you steal the gum/bike/whatever and then resist the person trying to take the gum back, then they would have a right to violently defend themselves since you're committing battery.  Stealing a bike and running away isn't a threat to your life, but an escalating physical fight could be construed as such.  So the act of stealing and running, I believe, doesn't require lethal force.

I think Rothbard should have been clearer in that chapter.  But I think his views come out to this:

1) There must be proportion in self-defense

I think this is something Rothbard would say, but at a close reading he actually does not write so in the Self-Defense EoL chapter. Ergo why I think he did not sufficiently refine his position.

The part you quoted "How extensive is a man's right of self-defense of person and property? The basic answer must be: up to the point at which he begins to infringe on the property rights of someone else." is not an argument against what I am talking about. Since it is the assailant who forced the choice and since he has the right to shoot himself no infringing of property rights took place. My scenario is little different from one where somebody tries to "extort" something by threatening to off themselves otherwise. It is fine to hold your own rights hostage, it is holding other people's rights hostage that involves infringement of property rights.

Rothbard prefaces his own bubblegum thief scenario with "Secondly, we may ask: must we go along with those libertarians who claim that a storekeeper has the right to kill a lad as punishment for snatching a piece of his bubblegum?" The title of the chapter may be Self-Defense, but Rothbard is in fact here talking about punishment instead, so there is only superficial similarity but in fact this does not tackle what I am talking about. This too is perfectly compatible with what I am saying and I in fact wholeheartedly agree. My whole point is that prescription for what force is justified in defense, the "minimal amount of force needed" prescription, may in a certain cases involve greater amount of force than the one prescribed by principle of proportionality we use for deciding on appropriate punishment. There are two different caps on maximum justified force involved and it is not always the case that one and the same is always higher. Either of them may be higher.

"I propose another fundamental rule regarding crime: the criminal, or invader, loses his own right to the extent that he has deprived another man of his. If a man deprives another man of some of his self-ownership or its extension in physical property, to that extent does he lose his own rights." Again true, but not relevant to self-defense. Rights being absolute you can defend them with that force which will let you preserve them. As long as you're using the minimum amount of force needed to defend yourself you really have no need to worry about what rights the assailant has. But if you really wanted to construct a similar rule for self-defense I suppose you could say "For the duration of the aggression the criminal, or invader, loses his own right to the extent needed to thwart his aggression or repair the consequences of thereof."

If I understand you correctly, it would seem that you are arguing for a maximalist or propertarian position, which is something Rothbard was dead against

No that isn't the case. I'm in agreement with everything Rothbard put in there, it is rather the case there is one thing he didn't tackle in there.

Could you explain that a little more?

I'm being asked to explain myself more a lot here. I try, but it doesn't seem to do a lot of good. Why don't you do me a favor and give me your anwser to the earlier stated rapist-who-shuns-threat-of-lethal-force scenario first? Is it OK to shoot a rapist thus potentially killing them in order to stop an ongoing rape when the rapist leaves you with no other choice? (Lets say that you are a bystander rather than the victim and the rapist is unresponsive to your warnings that you will shoot, lets say he is also on some platform you can not reach thus eliminating the possibility of you restraining him without the gun, and eliminating the possibility of a shot you could be certain of would incapacitate the rapist but not result in his death.)

I'll remind you the victim is not herself in immediate mortal danger from the rapist. So, if proportionality in defense is valid then the only way you can be certain of not breaking any rights is by letting the rape finish. Or am I wrong?

What do you mean by "take a beating"?  Nobody said they have to fight you.

It is a little bit silly for you to define things about my examples. Nobody said *they* have to fight, but I said they have to take a beating or shoot me. As the person creating this hypothetical scenario I probably have the power to construct it in the way this will in fact be true. Maybe I'm a big guy and have them in a corner and they have a busted leg. Also I won't respond to warning shots and actually since they wasted time on warnings I'm already on them so they may not shoot me in the leg for fear I will succeed in wrestling the gun from their hands if they don't put one in my chest at this very moment.

I agree this is an extremely unlikely scenario. Just what sort of an imbecile would it take to gamble with their life for the privilege of dishing out a severe beating? I think this is why there is so much resistance to what I am trying to say. It takes some very unexpected and downright unexplainable behavior for someone who is interested only in as relatively minor infringement of rights as beating someone up or stealing from them, to be ready to put their life on the line to do it.

That this is downright absurd scenario does not, however, mean that it does not happen regularly in a different setting. Think of non-combat, non-command military personel part of an occupying force. It is probably fair to say the only infringement of rights they are involved in is trespassing. Despite that, however, it is almost impossible to make them leave. They will not respond even to warnings that they may be shot. The only way to get them out of the country is to actually shoot them, and even then they won't leave if it is only a light wound. Only a severe wound that requires medevac or kills them will do.

Stealing a bike and running away isn't a threat to your life, but an escalating physical fight could be construed as such.  So the act of stealing and running, I believe, doesn't require lethal force.

Well I agree, but whether your life is threatened has nothing to do with it. The bike may be a unique artifact or hold great emotional value to you and therefore represent a greater value to you than your life. It may be your life is worth nothing to you without the bike. As we know valuation is subjective and can not be argued with.

The reason this act probably does not require lethal force is that even if the bike itself should be lost the owner can probably be compensated for both the bike itself and the time he was without the bike. So even if there is no other way of stopping the thief in the act than shooting and potentially killing them, there is no real harm done by letting the thief escape for the moment. But if we are talking about someone running away with a dialysis machine, or a bike that holds great emotional value and whose loss, even temporary loss, would bring pain to the owner worse than death then maybe lethal force is required. You can't make sweeping statements like that. You can say, however, that in practice it would be then up to the shooter to prove he couldn't live without the bike, which is again a ridiculous, but not theorethically impossible preposition.