gotlucky: triknighted: That's what I'm surprised with, Mr. Killington. Most people on this thread seem to pity the poor vandal that continued to infringe a couple's property rights despite their request that she stop. Now they're more concerned with the intentions of the vandal than upholding justice and defending one's property when oftentimes there is no chance to even know. There is theft, and then there is theft. I invite you to read Punishment and Proportionality by Murray Rothbard. I can only hope that Rothbard will bring you to reason.
triknighted: That's what I'm surprised with, Mr. Killington. Most people on this thread seem to pity the poor vandal that continued to infringe a couple's property rights despite their request that she stop. Now they're more concerned with the intentions of the vandal than upholding justice and defending one's property when oftentimes there is no chance to even know. There is theft, and then there is theft.
That's what I'm surprised with, Mr. Killington. Most people on this thread seem to pity the poor vandal that continued to infringe a couple's property rights despite their request that she stop. Now they're more concerned with the intentions of the vandal than upholding justice and defending one's property when oftentimes there is no chance to even know. There is theft, and then there is theft.
I invite you to read Punishment and Proportionality by Murray Rothbard. I can only hope that Rothbard will bring you to reason.
I just read it, and my critique stands. If someone breaks into your house, do you choose to assume the best or assume the worst? What makes you think you'll have enough time or blood flow to the brain to even rationalize the situation? Evidently you and many on here are presuming that when someone breaks into your home that it's like a game of chess. He moves, you think about it and move, so on and so forth. That's nuts.
Let me begin by asking this: what are the practical or average reasons why someone would break into the house?
I think that Rothbard's theory of proportionality concerns itself more with a justice of balance than with the utility of deterrence. I would rather live in a society where I can shoot first and ask questions later in my own home than a society where I have to react proportionately to a crime as it's being committed or, even worse, after it's been committed. I see no reason for people to have to become a victim in their own homes before they should have the legal right to defend themselves. If they happen to commit disproportionate aggression in their own homes then so be it. Better that than the alternative. Better that potential criminals understand that once they go in someone else's house they're on very precarious ground than have them know that homeowners are heavily restricted in terms of their options for defense.
This is, as usual, a tradeoff. But I see no reason to favor the trade-off proposed by Rothbard.
@Rorschach
Walter Block always has interesting viewpoints, but I do disagree with him on this one. I mean, why don't we take his logic even further than he went and start planting mines all over my yard. And then, if someone even let's their dog pee on my yard, well, so long Sparky! I understand where he is coming from, but this is one thing that really gets me about Natural Rights theory: Rothbard goes one way, and Block goes another. And of course, it only gets stickier with implicit contracts. This is one of the main reasons I put a huge emphasis on social norms. They can end up morally wrong in my view, but they are far more fluid and are meant to resolve conflicts (as social norms are meant to do). Natural Rights theory, which is really just armchair theorizing, can be very useful (I adore Rothbard), but in the end it doesn't give us all the answers. And this is especially obvious because Rothbard and Block are disagreeing!!!!
I think Walter Block's point in the conclusion is very important, as it is far too often that people look at only one viewpoint.
triknighted:I just read it, and my critique stands.
Based on what? Based on you just saying so?
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
bloomj31:I think that Rothbard's theory of proportionality concerns itself more with a justice of balance than with the utility of deterrence. I would rather live in a society where I can shoot first and ask questions later in my own home than a society where I have to react proportionately to a crime as it's being committed or, even worse, after it's been committed. I see no reason for people to have to become a victim in their own homes before they should have the legal right to defend themselves. If they happen to commit disproportionate aggression in their own homes then so be it. Better that than the alternative. Better that potential criminals understand that once they go in someone else's house they're on very precarious ground than have them know that homeowners are heavily restricted in terms of their options for defense.
I thought you didn't adhere to any moral values.
triknighted: Evidently you and many on here are presuming that when someone breaks into your home that it's like a game of chess. He moves, you think about it and move, so on and so forth. That's nuts.
Evidently you and many on here are presuming that when someone breaks into your home that it's like a game of chess. He moves, you think about it and move, so on and so forth. That's nuts.
triknighted, master of the strawman!
triknighted: I just read it, and my critique stands. If someone breaks into your house, do you choose to assume the best or assume the worst? What makes you think you'll have enough time or blood flow to the brain to even rationalize the situation?
I just read it, and my critique stands. If someone breaks into your house, do you choose to assume the best or assume the worst? What makes you think you'll have enough time or blood flow to the brain to even rationalize the situation?
So is it okay to shoot the bubble gum thief? Look, there are a number of things that can happen when someone breaks into another's home. We are talking about a specific case here, where a drunk girl broke into someone else's home. Oftentimes, when a drunk person has broken into another's home, it is because they actually think they are in their own, and they are not a threat to the actual homeowner.
The problem I have with your attitude on this matter is that your attitude does not take into account proportionality. From your attitude, it seems like you would be okay with a shopowner shooting the bubblegum thief, because after all, you don't like it when "[m]ost people on this thread seem to pity the poor vandal that continued to infringe a [shopowner's] property rights despite [his] request that she stop." So we should just start shooting shoplifters?
I'm not saying the girl isn't guilty of trespassing, and especially since the couple called out to her (well they claimed to, but I think I believe them), this couple may very well have done the right thing. But your immediate attitude of siding with whatever amount of force the homeowners felt they should use is just plainly wrong.
triknighted: Let me begin by asking this: what are the practical or average reasons why someone would break into the house?
I wonder. Why do people commit crimes?
Let me ask you: why should we start shooting shoplifters?
autolykos: I thought you didn't adhere to any moral values.
I don't recall ever saying I don't have values. Everyone has values.
bloomj31: I don't recall ever saying I don't have values. Everyone has values. Oh, every so often you like to claim that you don't study morality, only law. And it would just be darned irresponsible of you to have opinions about morality when you don't ponder it all day like a good philosopher. I thought you only stuck to citing law and case precedant? LibertyHQ and its awesome forum. | Post Points: 20
bloomj31:I don't recall ever saying I don't have values. Everyone has values.
Psychopath is as psychopath does.
gotlucky: Oh, every so often you like to claim that you don't study morality, only law.
It's true I don't study morality. But something just strikes me as being wrong about this paper I dunno. Perhaps I should just leave it alone.
autolykos: Psychopath is as psychopath does.
Why? Because I don't have principal values?
Autolykos: triknighted:I just read it, and my critique stands. Based on what? Based on you just saying so?
Yes.
gotlucky: triknighted: Evidently you and many on here are presuming that when someone breaks into your home that it's like a game of chess. He moves, you think about it and move, so on and so forth. That's nuts. triknighted, master of the strawman! triknighted: I just read it, and my critique stands. If someone breaks into your house, do you choose to assume the best or assume the worst? What makes you think you'll have enough time or blood flow to the brain to even rationalize the situation? So is it okay to shoot the bubble gum thief? Look, there are a number of things that can happen when someone breaks into another's home. We are talking about a specific case here, where a drunk girl broke into someone else's home. Oftentimes, when a drunk person has broken into another's home, it is because they actually think they are in their own, and they are not a threat to the actual homeowner. The problem I have with your attitude on this matter is that your attitude does not take into account proportionality. From your attitude, it seems like you would be okay with a shopowner shooting the bubblegum thief, because after all, you don't like it when "[m]ost people on this thread seem to pity the poor vandal that continued to infringe a [shopowner's] property rights despite [his] request that she stop." So we should just start shooting shoplifters? I'm not saying the girl isn't guilty of trespassing, and especially since the couple called out to her (well they claimed to, but I think I believe them), this couple may very well have done the right thing. But your immediate attitude of siding with whatever amount of force the homeowners felt they should use is just plainly wrong. triknighted: Let me begin by asking this: what are the practical or average reasons why someone would break into the house? I wonder. Why do people commit crimes? Let me ask you: why should we start shooting shoplifters?
It was merely a rhetorical example, not a strawman. As far as principle goes, I already explained it above. Since you didn't get it the first time, or since you didn't actually read what I wrote, I figured I would give you an example.
As for your bubblegum scenario, principally I understand that it is merely bubblegum. But again, this is someone breaking into a home. There is no way to tell their intentions! Dude, don't you fucking get it? That's my entire point spelled out for you: Y-O-U D-O N-O-T K-N-O-W T-H-E I-N-T-E-N-T-I-O-N-S O-F T-H-E P-E-R-S-O-N B-R-E-A-K-I-N-G I-N. You, apparently, want to have an in-depth discourse with the gentleman to know his intentions. I would not. That's fine if it's for you; I say it's a stupid decision to try to second guess and give some asshole the benefit of the doubt. Fuck him if he wants gum; he shouldn't break into people's homes to get it.
Refute my stance if you will, but that's as simple as I can make it without resorting to "another strawman" as you put it. Jeez. As for shoplifting example you brought up . . . .
triknighted,
I am truly impressed. I point out your strawman, and you proceed to use the same strawman with different words:
triknighted: You, apparently, want to have an in-depth discourse with the gentleman to know his intentions. I would not. That's fine if it's for you; I say it's a stupid decision to try to second guess and give some asshole the benefit of the doubt.
You, apparently, want to have an in-depth discourse with the gentleman to know his intentions. I would not. That's fine if it's for you; I say it's a stupid decision to try to second guess and give some asshole the benefit of the doubt.
I'll spell it out for you: It is not my opinion that people should have an in-depth discourse with intruders to know their intentions. Furthermore, I pointed out my problem with your attitude about the situation, and you did not address it. For your own ease:
gotlucky: The problem I have with your attitude on this matter is that your attitude does not take into account proportionality. From your attitude, it seems like you would be okay with a shopowner shooting the bubblegum thief, because after all, you don't like it when "[m]ost people on this thread seem to pity the poor vandal that continued to infringe a [shopowner's] property rights despite [his] request that she stop." So we should just start shooting shoplifters?
To spell it out for you: You seem to have complete disregard for the principle of proportionality. Perhaps the homeowners did the right thing, legally/morally/whatever. My problem is not with them. It is with your attitude that proportionality does not matter.
triknighted: Fuck him if he wants gum; he shouldn't break into people's homes to get it.
Fuck him if he wants gum; he shouldn't break into people's homes to get it.
My goodness, more strawmen. Did you even read the link to Murray Rothbard? The bubblegum has nothing to do with breaking into people's homes. It is a separate scenario entirely.
triknighted: Refute my stance if you will, but that's as simple as I can make it without resorting to "another strawman" as you put it.Jeez. As for shoplifting example you brought up . . . .
Refute my stance if you will, but that's as simple as I can make it without resorting to "another strawman" as you put it.Jeez. As for shoplifting example you brought up . . . .
Well, you did resort to other strawmen. Twice.
Perhaps you would be interested in engaging me in conversation without misrepresenting my viewpoints. It shouldn't be hard. It's really easy if you actually just quote what I say, verbatim.
And yes, I'm waiting for more than "...." in regards to the shoplifting.
gotlucky: triknighted, I am truly impressed. I point out your strawman, and you proceed to use the same strawman with different words: triknighted: You, apparently, want to have an in-depth discourse with the gentleman to know his intentions. I would not. That's fine if it's for you; I say it's a stupid decision to try to second guess and give some asshole the benefit of the doubt. I'll spell it out for you: It is not my opinion that people should have an in-depth discourse with intruders to know their intentions. Furthermore, I pointed out my problem with your attitude about the situation, and you did not address it. For your own ease: gotlucky: The problem I have with your attitude on this matter is that your attitude does not take into account proportionality. From your attitude, it seems like you would be okay with a shopowner shooting the bubblegum thief, because after all, you don't like it when "[m]ost people on this thread seem to pity the poor vandal that continued to infringe a [shopowner's] property rights despite [his] request that she stop." So we should just start shooting shoplifters? To spell it out for you: You seem to have complete disregard for the principle of proportionality. Perhaps the homeowners did the right thing, legally/morally/whatever. My problem is not with them. It is with your attitude that proportionality does not matter. triknighted: Fuck him if he wants gum; he shouldn't break into people's homes to get it. My goodness, more strawmen. Did you even read the link to Murray Rothbard? The bubblegum has nothing to do with breaking into people's homes. It is a separate scenario entirely. triknighted: Refute my stance if you will, but that's as simple as I can make it without resorting to "another strawman" as you put it.Jeez. As for shoplifting example you brought up . . . . Well, you did resort to other strawmen. Twice. Perhaps you would be interested in engaging me in conversation without misrepresenting my viewpoints. It shouldn't be hard. It's really easy if you actually just quote what I say, verbatim. And yes, I'm waiting for more than "...." in regards to the shoplifting.
This is what I was referring to with my above comment:
triknighted: Aristophanes: You make a point, Aristophanes, but my main point is that the looting occured to begin with. People who own weapons who are not prepared to use them to defend his or her property make owning the weapon futile. That's my only point. So, should we use our firearms to stop the people who are trying to confiscate them (the U.S. Army)? Or teenage girls who wander into the wrong area? Nothing is black or white in a scenario of someone breaking into your house. In that situation, there's no ability to tell if someone is there to do you harm, to simply steal, if they're simply drunk or anything. That doesn't mean you don't act. Let me ask you this: when is it appropriate for someone to defend his or her property with weaponry, aiming to kill?
Aristophanes: You make a point, Aristophanes, but my main point is that the looting occured to begin with. People who own weapons who are not prepared to use them to defend his or her property make owning the weapon futile. That's my only point. So, should we use our firearms to stop the people who are trying to confiscate them (the U.S. Army)? Or teenage girls who wander into the wrong area?
You make a point, Aristophanes, but my main point is that the looting occured to begin with. People who own weapons who are not prepared to use them to defend his or her property make owning the weapon futile. That's my only point.
So, should we use our firearms to stop the people who are trying to confiscate them (the U.S. Army)? Or teenage girls who wander into the wrong area?
Nothing is black or white in a scenario of someone breaking into your house. In that situation, there's no ability to tell if someone is there to do you harm, to simply steal, if they're simply drunk or anything. That doesn't mean you don't act.
Let me ask you this: when is it appropriate for someone to defend his or her property with weaponry, aiming to kill?
It wasn't a straw man . . . you simply brought something else up and I re-referenced what I put. Really man, I can't make this simpler than I already have.
Let's start over and have some sort of baseline:
Question 1: When is it appropriate for someone to defend his or her property with weaponry, aiming to kill?
triknighted: This is what I was referring to with my above comment:...It wasn't a straw man . . . you simply brought something else up and I re-referenced what I put. Really man, I can't make this simpler than I already have.
This is what I was referring to with my above comment:...It wasn't a straw man . . . you simply brought something else up and I re-referenced what I put. Really man, I can't make this simpler than I already have.
No. You said "most people on this thread". You cannot cite one person and claim that is most people. Furthermore, you restated this strawman to delibrately include me. Do you know what a straw man is? It is when you misrepresent someone's argument and then proceed to argue against the misrepresentation. Furthermore, you created another straw man in regards to the gum scenario. The bubble gum thief has to do with shoplifting, not stealing from someone's house. And you combined the two in order to ridicule my position, and it was most certainly not my position.
triknighted: Let's start over and have some sort of baseline:
Sure, why not.
triknighted: Question 1: When is it appropriate for someone to defend his or her property with weaponry, aiming to kill?
The only time it is appropriate to aim to kill is when your life is in mortal danger. However, sometimes people create situations where you cannot know their intent. I am not against people defending their property with lethal force during a home invasion. I don't recall saying otherwise. I also believe that the appropriate response depends upon the circumstances. In the particular article provided for this thread, I do not believe that the homeowners were necessarily wrong. I don't believe they were necessarily right, either. The problem that I have with you on this matter is that you are taking the position that the homeowner was necessarily right in their actions. Sure, there is nothing wrong with giving them the benefit of the doubt, but that is not what you have been doing.
As I said, my problem here is that you seem to have no respect for the notion of proportionality.
"Just because I don't think something justifies lethal force doesn't mean I don't think it justifies any force."
So, do tell, in your world, what are property owners allowed to do when someone breaks in their house and refuses to leave?
limitgov:So, do tell, in your world [sic], what are property owners allowed to do when someone breaks in their house and refuses to leave?
They're allowed to remove the trespasser by force.
gotlucky: triknighted: This is what I was referring to with my above comment:...It wasn't a straw man . . . you simply brought something else up and I re-referenced what I put. Really man, I can't make this simpler than I already have. No. You said "most people on this thread". You cannot cite one person and claim that is most people. Furthermore, you restated this strawman to delibrately include me. Do you know what a straw man is? It is when you misrepresent someone's argument and then proceed to argue against the misrepresentation. Furthermore, you created another straw man in regards to the gum scenario. The bubble gum thief has to do with shoplifting, not stealing from someone's house. And you combined the two in order to ridicule my position, and it was most certainly not my position. triknighted: Let's start over and have some sort of baseline: Sure, why not. triknighted: Question 1: When is it appropriate for someone to defend his or her property with weaponry, aiming to kill? The only time it is appropriate to aim to kill is when your life is in mortal danger. However, sometimes people create situations where you cannot know their intent. I am not against people defending their property with lethal force during a home invasion. I don't recall saying otherwise. I also believe that the appropriate response depends upon the circumstances. In the particular article provided for this thread, I do not believe that the homeowners were necessarily wrong. I don't believe they were necessarily right, either. The problem that I have with you on this matter is that you are taking the position that the homeowner was necessarily right in their actions. Sure, there is nothing wrong with giving them the benefit of the doubt, but that is not what you have been doing. As I said, my problem here is that you seem to have no respect for the notion of proportionality.
I wasn't trying to "disprove" your original claim on the gum in a theft scenario in order to "prove" my original scenario. The strawman argument is meant to give the illusion that you have answered or resolved an initial problem by bringing up an entirely different one and resolving it. Again . . . I was referring to an older post. Yes, I tied it in to what you were bringing up, but that is not a strawman. You're confusing time (specifically order) with content. Just so you can rest assured, my intentions are to have a formal discourse with a baseline for logical, cooperative development.
In response to your answer of the baseline question, I simply disagree. I have been in situations where upon an occurence such as the aforementioned scenario of someone breaking into your house, there is little to no rational thought. Blood drains into vital organs, adrenal glands pump out adrenaline and it's fight or flight time. That's my entire point. There is little time and little dimension to responding to a break in. My entire point is this: there is no formal discourse between you and a person breaking in. There is no way to know his or her intentions. There is no conclusive way to know if the person poses a legitimate threat. It comes down to a wager: don't do anything and risk your family's and/or your safety, or proactively seek to protect your life and/or property in the case that the person means harm or can cause harm.
That's my entire point.
triknighted:It comes down to a wager: don't do anything and risk your family's and/or your safety, or proactively seek to protect your life and/or property in the case that the person means harm or can cause harm.
Just like LimitGov, you're arguing a false dilemma. The choices aren't simply between doing nothing and killing (or at least trying to kill) the trespasser.
cmon guys.. dont pussy out of propertarianism when its ugly side rearrs itself.. if you believe in this, then you got to stick with it, even in the bad times. And agree that it is OK to shoot an intoxicated home invader that does not obey orders to leave the premises.
Who said we're all "propertarians"? Hmm?
triknighted: In response to your answer of the baseline question, I simply disagree.
In response to your answer of the baseline question, I simply disagree.
What exactly are you disagreeing with?
triknighted: My entire point is this: there is no formal discourse between you and a person breaking in. There is no way to know his or her intentions.
My entire point is this: there is no formal discourse between you and a person breaking in. There is no way to know his or her intentions.
I never said there was.
triknighted: There is no conclusive way to know if the person poses a legitimate threat. It comes down to a wager: don't do anything and risk your family's and/or your safety, or proactively seek to protect your life and/or property in the case that the person means harm or can cause harm.
There is no conclusive way to know if the person poses a legitimate threat. It comes down to a wager: don't do anything and risk your family's and/or your safety, or proactively seek to protect your life and/or property in the case that the person means harm or can cause harm.
As Autolykos has pointed out, you are creating a false dilemma. There are more than two options.
And I would like to state again, that I have not said that this couple was necessarily right or wrong. I am just pointing out that you seem to have no regard for the concept of proportionality, and I think that is a shame. As Rothbard has pointed out, if you go beyond what the appropriate amount of force is, then you are now an aggressor too. You don't seem to agree with this concept.
"They're allowed to remove the trespasser by force."
you said they couldn't shoot them in the head, so what can they do? can they shoot them at all? what kind of will you permit them to use?
limitgov:you said they couldn't shoot them in the head, so what can they do? can they shoot them at all? what kind of will you permit them to use?
Shooting a person in the head doesn't remove him from your property, does it? In fact, shooting a person at all doesn't do so. Keep in mind that we're talking about trespassing and refusing to leave per se - that is, we're not assuming any additional intentions to the trespasser. With that said, I will permit them to use whatever force is necessary to remove the trespasser. As lethal force does not remove the trespasser, it doesn't qualify.
Troll harder, Xarthaz.
Autolykos: Shooting a person in the head doesn't remove him from your property, does it? In fact, shooting a person at all doesn't do so. Keep in mind that we're talking about trespassing and refusing to leave per se - that is, we're not assuming any additional intentions to the trespasser. With that said, I will permit them to use whatever force is necessary to remove the trespasser. As lethal force does not remove the trespasser, it doesn't qualify.
I find this topic fascinating. Is there an example of a scenario you can offer whereby it is justified to shoot someone in the head after he is breaking into your home? gotlucky derails objective discussion with anecdotal value judgments regarding the ethics (or lack thereof) of proportionality. Mr. Autolykos, I think you will give me sufficient material to better understand the "shooting in the head" scenario as I think that is the main cause of chasm between some members in this thread.
"With that said, I will permit them to use whatever force is necessary to remove the trespasser."
can you be specific? you're subjects would want you to give them specifics on what force they could use, so they don't get in trouble.
Having a shoot first, ask questions later policy will really just incentivize criminals to hold the same policy. Criminals aren't criminals for no reason, they are criminals because it appears to be part-time work with a chance at high pay-off. (Off topic, but we could probably get rid of a lot of petty crime just by having a minimum living wage... but that's another topic completely)
If everyone just starts with shoot first, I really wouldn't be surprised if home invasions stop being "root around in the dark" and start being "bust in the door and start shooting."
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin
limitgov:can you be specific? you're subjects [sic] would want you to give them [sic] specifics on what force they could [sic] use, so they don't get in trouble [sic].
First I'd appreciate it if you fixed your tone. If you're no longer taking me seriously, then why bother responding to me at all? And why should I continue to take you seriously?
Laotzu del Zinn: Having a shoot first, ask questions later policy will really just incentivize criminals to hold the same policy. Criminals aren't criminals for no reason, they are criminals because it appears to be part-time work with a chance at high pay-off.
Criminals are rational just like everyone else. Not everyone who considers a life of crime will find the risk to be worth the reward. I sure as hell don't. The goal then is to make crime so risky that the potential pay-off is far outweighed by the potential risk for most people who might consider crime as a "part-time job" over a legitimate (legal) business so that the only criminals left are the true crazies that just need killing. They'll self select themselves for extermination. So hopefully you're right. Hopefully the result would be to marginalize a significant population of criminals so that the only people who would even consider breaking into someone's house are precisely the kinds of people who should just be shot on sight. Homeowners won't have to give a second thought to pulling the trigger in their own homes because they know they're probably dealing with potential murderers not just petty thieves and potential thieves will know that going in.
Laotzu del Zinn: If everyone just starts with shoot first, I really wouldn't be surprised if home invasions stop being "root around in the dark" and start being "bust in the door and start shooting."
I would think this would essentially be the goal. No longer would people even think of breaking into someone's house just to "root around." Such an activity would be incredibly risky because the owner could just kill that person on sight with a reasonable assurance of impunity. The only way anyone would even consider a break-in would be if they were ready to go in and kill everyone. But not every criminal is going to be willing to take the kind of extreme risk because they'll know that homeowners know that the odds are that they're dealing with people who should just be shot on sight.
The goal should be to make crime not just not pay (be a break even at worst) but really not be worth it at all (be a serious net loss by most people's reckoning) for anyone who gets caught in the act, not to make crime pay for a broader swath of potential criminals plus the true psychopaths who truly relish murdering.
The problem is that most people who consider a life of crime follow a policy of "I'm too smart to get caught." And this has been true throughout history. Do you think the Romans were soft on crime?
This brings up another question, one brought up earlier... why don't we just publicly execute shoplifters, tresspassers, etc? Do you think if we just executed racists willy nilly that would end racism, or intesify it, or nothing?
Most people are well aware of the element of surprise. These draconian measures have been tried often in the past, if they have any effect on actual theivery it is minimal at best. Again, the theif sees himself as too smart to get caught, and having the element of surprise. If he knows you will simply be allowed to shoot first ask questions later, he's just going to break in and do the same. This is exactly the war of all against all that makes the state think it has any kind of legitimacy; ie, that criminal law is more effective than common law.
For example; 3 strikes laws. There is no significant difference in the drop of the homocide rate in California where the 3 strikes are enforced and where they are not. Obviously, something other than the harshness of criminal punishment is the major factor in this drop... most likely the decline in hostilities between rival gangs.
"First I'd appreciate it if you fixed your tone. If you're no longer taking me seriously, then why bother responding to me at all? And why should I continue to take you seriously?"
you remind me of bernie mac....in some movie...i forgot which one....he looks right at this dude...and says "watch how you talk to me"....only he sounds alot cooler and tougher than the voice in my head.
Laotzu del Zinn:The problem is that most people who consider a life of crime follow a policy of "I'm too smart to get caught." And this has been true throughout history.
Source for claim?
Laotzu del Zinn: Do you think the Romans were soft on crime?
I have no idea. Does it matter?
Laotzu del Zinn: This brings up another question, one brought up earlier... why don't we just publicly execute shoplifters, tresspassers, etc?
I dunno why don't we? Why might we look on one crime more severely than another? Btw in states like mine (GA) we have castle laws. You can shoot a trespasser under certain conditions.
Laotzu del Zinn: Do you think if we just executed racists willy nilly that would end racism, or intesify it, or nothing?
I have no idea. It's impossible to police thoughts, it's possible to police action. Criminal action is revealed preference.
Laotzu del Zinn: Most people are well aware of the element of surprise. These draconian measures have been tried often in the past, if they have any effect on actual theivery it is minimal at best. Again, the theif sees himself as too smart to get caught, and having the element of surprise. If he knows you will simply be allowed to shoot first ask questions later, he's just going to break in and do the same.
Laotzu del Zinn: There is no significant difference in the drop of the homocide rate in California where the 3 strikes are enforced and where they are not. Obviously, something other than the harshness of criminal punishment is the major factor in this drop... most likely the decline in hostilities between rival gangs.
I just thought of a really good one too. Why let people own guns? Might not criminals decide to buy guns too? Shouldn't we all disarm so that criminals won't have a reason to own guns to protect themselves from homeowners?
Fair enough, personal anectdote. It comes from having lived with and befriended criminals. I have no data, so it's largely irrelevant.
I think it does, since that's really the meat of the issue; does harsh punishment for crime deter crime?
And GA, as far as I know, has just as bad of a crime problem as the rest of the country, and worse in some places (like Atl).
Fair enough. Do you think executing shoplifters will significantly decrease theft from stores, or channel the theft more into violent robbery?
For which claim? That draconian measures have been tried, and seen to fail, in the past? Or that criminals in this situation will engage in fatal home invasions more often?
Laotzu del Zinn: I think it does, since that's really the meat of the issue; does harsh punishment for crime deter crime?
Well that's probably unknowable to some degree. How can we know how many break-ins would have occurred had the homeowners had less defense rights in their home? Even if we try to compare two different time periods, how do we control for other variables? In this instance I see no reason why homeowners shouldn't have a full suite of protections against potential invaders.
Either way, I'm not intending to speak about the broader issue of crime control across all instances of crime, though I'm not entirely certain that a public with expansive defense rights is ever a bad thing. I'm more focused on one particular form of crime right now and that's home break-ins. I'm also not saying that proportionate response deserves no consideration, even at a gut level some punishments may just seem over-the-top. I'm just saying that I think both deterrent and proportionate responses are worth considering in this issue.
Laotzu del Zinn: And GA, as far as I know, has just as bad of a crime problem as the rest of the country, and worse in some places (like Atl).
I'm trying to find a good site for crime statistics in GA. I'm gonna bet a lot of the crime is drug related and in low-income areas but I can't stand by that yet.
Laotzu del Zinn: Do you think executing shoplifters will significantly decrease theft from stores, or channel the theft more into violent robbery?
I have no idea, the act of breaking into a house seems fundamentally different from shoplifting from a store. There's different trade-offs to examine when considering executing shoplifters.
Laotzu del Zinn: That draconian measures have been tried, and seen to fail, in the past? Or that criminals in this situation will engage in fatal home invasions more often?
I would be interested to see both actually.
Laotzu del Zinn: Wikipedia; 3 strikes law
The source of the claim in the wikipedia article merely restates the claim that crime dropped after the implementation of three strikes, the wikipedia article then says "However, violent crime has also fallen in other areas of California where the Three Strikes law is not enforced. It should also be noted that punishments for homicides are extremely harsh, resulting in extremely long sentences, life sentences without the possibility of parole or even the death penalty, even for the first conviction, overshadowing any deterrent effect of the three strikes law."
Within the actual article I found this: "Crime generally has been going down since 1994; it's now half what it was in 1994," says UCLA public policy professor Mark Kleiman. "It's a spectacularly dramatic social change."
Kleiman says police departments have new crime-predicting tools and sometimes better community relations. Sentences are stricter, and there are more prisons.
There's another big difference between now and the early 1990s, when the crack wars were at their peak: "Crack dealers have learned how to do business without killing each other," Kleiman says. "In the early days, it was like a gold rush, and people were literally shooting each other on the street corners.
"They were also heavily armed and shooting each other over petty interpersonal disputes."
Kleiman says that has calmed down because "a lot of the people who would be committing murder in L.A. are dead, and the rest are doing life in prison."
I also found this study in the citations. It's kind of a long read. Of particular interest: "California has seen the longest and greatest drop in crime in the last 10 years since such records have been kept. The most remarkable part of these side-by-side crime drops is that at the same time California increased its general population by 1/3, which is a total reversal of what was projected, since more population has historically always translated into more crime....
The reduction in crime that occurred after the passage of 3-Strikes speaks for itself. Any objective assessment would credit 3-Strikes with playing a major role in California’s record crimes drops."
Ofcourse statistics don't always tell the whole story but I'm not sure that your source is in total agreement with your opinion.
limitgov:you remind me of bernie mac....in some movie...i forgot which one....he looks right at this dude...and says "watch how you talk to me"....only he sounds alot cooler and tougher than the voice in my head.
Is that part about "the voice in my head" referring to me?
And are you going to fix your tone or not?
Well that's probably unknowable to some degree. How can we know how many break-ins would have occurred had the homeowners had less defense rights in their home? Even if we try to compare two different time periods, how do we control for other variables? In this instance I see no reason why homeowners shouldn't have a full suite of protections against potential invaders. Either way, I'm not intending to speak about the broader issue of crime control across all instances of crime, though I'm not entirely certain that a public with expansive defense rights is ever a bad thing. I'm more focused on one particular form of crime right now and that's home break-ins. I'm also not saying that proportionate response deserves no consideration, even at a gut level some punishments may just seem over-the-top. I'm just saying that I think both deterrent and proportionate responses are worth considering in this issue.
Fair enough. I don't think this issue can truly be solved without more conclusive data. For now, let's just say I prefer more leniency on crime in general; from the thought process that punishment is treating the symptoms, not the disease.
They're different. I don't think they are "fundamentally" different tho. Both involve a property owner protecting her property.
I think any cursory study of history will show that draconian law usually just exacerbates the problem... at least that's been my interpertation. As far as the fatal home invasions go... that's more just me thinking what I would do were I a criminal.
The source of the claim in the wikipedia article merely restates the claim that crime dropped after the implementation of three strikes, the wikipedia article then says "However, violent crime has also fallen in other areas of California where the Three Strikes law is not enforced. It should also be noted that punishments for homicides are extremely harsh, resulting in extremely long sentences, life sentences without the possibility of parole or even the death penalty, even for the first conviction, overshadowing any deterrent effect of the three strikes law." Within the actual article I found this: "Crime generally has been going down since 1994; it's now half what it was in 1994," says UCLA public policy professor Mark Kleiman. "It's a spectacularly dramatic social change." Kleiman says police departments have new crime-predicting tools and sometimes better community relations. Sentences are stricter, and there are more prisons. There's another big difference between now and the early 1990s, when the crack wars were at their peak: "Crack dealers have learned how to do business without killing each other," Kleiman says. "In the early days, it was like a gold rush, and people were literally shooting each other on the street corners. "They were also heavily armed and shooting each other over petty interpersonal disputes." Kleiman says that has calmed down because "a lot of the people who would be committing murder in L.A. are dead, and the rest are doing life in prison." I also found this study in the citations. It's kind of a long read. Of particular interest: "California has seen the longest and greatest drop in crime in the last 10 years since such records have been kept. The most remarkable part of these side-by-side crime drops is that at the same time California increased its general population by 1/3, which is a total reversal of what was projected, since more population has historically always translated into more crime.... The reduction in crime that occurred after the passage of 3-Strikes speaks for itself. Any objective assessment would credit 3-Strikes with playing a major role in California’s record crimes drops." Ofcourse statistics don't always tell the whole story but I'm not sure that your source is in total agreement with your opinion.
"Total agreement?" No. Yet it is clear that the 3 strikes law could not have played that major of a role in the drop in crime, as crime dropped just as much where it is not enforced. Tho, according to your study, "harsh punishment" may have, so that is a different story. It's interesting, and I will have to look over it. Perhaps in some circumstances harsh punishment can deter crime.
aervew: cmon guys.. dont pussy out of propertarianism when its ugly side rearrs itself.. if you believe in this, then you got to stick with it, even in the bad times. And agree that it is OK to shoot an intoxicated home invader that does not obey orders to leave the premises.
You're making too much sense for many of the idealists in this thread. This is why I maintain that so many anarcho-capitalists/voluntaryists are idealists. They believe that people aren't naturally competitive; that the Hobbesian "fallacy" somehow precludes people's greed. I believe that the majority of people are good, but I know that there are many people who would take advantage of complete chaos and loot, rape and murder at will. There will eventually be an economic collapse, and when there is, all the fat, lazy assholes who've been subsidized their whole lives will go looking for their "fair share," no matter at whose expense.