triknighted: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?
Strictly in terms of breaking into my home, I can think of no scenario where such would be justified IMO. An example where I think it could be (if not would be) justified to shoot someone in the head is if he comes at me with a deadly weapon, at which point I shoot him (intentionally) in the torso, and then he keeps coming at me.
triknighted:gotlucky derails objective discussion with anecdotal value judgments regarding the ethics (or lack thereof) of proportionality.
I fail to see how this discussion is objective when terms like "justified" are used. I agree with what GotLucky has said in its essentials, if not in its entirety. He and I both see this as an ethical/moral discussion. So I suggest re-reading his posts.
triknighted: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.
I hope the above helps.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
triknighted: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.
As I implied in my response to Xarthaz Aervew, anarcho-capitalism/voluntaryism is not the same as "propertarianism". Furthermore, I know of no anarcho-capitalist/voluntaryist that doesn't believe that people are naturally competitive. What do you mean by "Hobbesian 'fallacy'", though?
triknighted: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.
I sure hope you're not implying that anarcho-capitalism/voluntaryism is the same as complete chaos. It's already been explained to you that those are in no way the same thing.
triknighted: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.
That may be, but I don't see how that's at all relevant to the topic of this thread.
"Is that part about "the voice in my head" referring to me?"
yes....I said you remind me of him....
"And are you going to fix your tone or not?"
are you a teacher? come on auto....lighten up a little. have you and I gotten along in the past? i don't remember, but I do remember seeing your name quite a bit on some of my posts.
I like your Minerva response; it's perfect. Let's stick with that.
limitgov:yes....I said you remind me of him....
In other words, you were implicitly saying that I don't sound as "cool" or as "tough" as Bernie Mac did in that movie scene. Am I right? If so, then I'd like you to explain your point behind such a personal attack.
limitgov:are you a teacher? come on auto....lighten up a little. have you and I gotten along in the past? i don't remember, but I do remember seeing your name quite a bit on some of my posts.
Let's try this again. Are you going to fix your tone or not?
triknighted:I like your Minerva response; it's perfect. Let's stick with that.
No, let's not. My response in that thread has little, if anything, to do with this thread's topic.
Autolykos: limitgov:yes....I said you remind me of him.... In other words, you were implicitly saying that I don't sound as "cool" or as "tough" as Bernie Mac did in that movie scene. Am I right? If so, then I'd like you to explain your point behind such a personal attack. limitgov:are you a teacher? come on auto....lighten up a little. have you and I gotten along in the past? i don't remember, but I do remember seeing your name quite a bit on some of my posts. Let's try this again. Are you going to fix your tone or not?
How do you define tone?
"In other words, you were implicitly saying that I don't sound as "cool" or as "tough" as Bernie Mac did in that movie scene."
Yes...your voice sounds just as cool as Bernie Mac. wait.....are you black?
"Let's try this again. Are you going to fix your tone or not?"
yes, Mr. Auto....I will fix my tone. are you going to address my question?
limitgov:Yes...your voice sounds just as cool as Bernie Mac. wait.....are you black?
Were you or were you not implicitly stating that I don't sound as "cool" or as "tough" as Bernie Mac did in that movie scene? Yes or no? I'm not going to let you try to change the subject.
limitgov:yes, Mr. Auto....I will fix my tone. are you going to address my question?
Are you going to ask it again, this time with a fixed tone?
"Were you or were you not implicitly stating that I don't sound as "cool" or as "tough" as Bernie Mac did in that movie scene? Yes or no? I'm not going to let you try to change the subject."
No, I'm saying you sound as cool, probably even cooler than Bernie Mac.
"Are you going to ask it again, this time with a fixed tone?"
Yes. but I forgot what the question was...what were we talking about again?
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.
I think it's well established in Austrian economics that humans pursue their own self satisfaction which is value neutral human programming. I do not have an opinion on whether the majority of people are good because I think all human beings are created equal in that they are all programmed to pursue their own self satisfaction.
I do believe the majority of human action at any given point in time is good. I am subjectively asserting good is not initiating aggression and I think it is observable the majority of human action at any given point in time is not initiating aggression.
In any event I mainly posted again in this thread because I keep seeing this phrase:
"breaking into your house"
I am curious if "breaking" implies property damage? If so, does entering through an unlocked door qualify as "breaking"?
Furthermore since borders are abstract imaginary concepts and it is impossible to know if you cross one without some kind of notice... what constitutes notice? If I am wallking through a residential neighborhood and let's just say no one has any fences to keep it absurdly easy to visualize... how am I supposed to know the precise moment I cross the borders of each parcel of property? Are there any responsibilities that offset the privileges of property ownership?
limitgov:"Were you or were you not implicitly stating that I don't sound as "cool" or as "tough" as Bernie Mac did in that movie scene? Yes or no? I'm not going to let you try to change the subject." No, I'm saying you sound as cool, probably even cooler than Bernie Mac.
No you're not, and you're apparently a bad liar on top of that:
limitgov:you remind me of bernie mac....in some movie...i forgot which one....he [Bernie Mac] looks right at this dude...and says "watch how you talk to me"....only he [Bernie Mac] sounds alot cooler and tougher than the voice in my head.
So who is the voice in your head? It can't be Bernie Mac, since you're contrasting the voice in your head with him.
limitgov:"Are you going to ask it again, this time with a fixed tone?" Yes. but I forgot what the question was...what were we talking about again?
See this post of yours. I look forward to you rephrasing its contents in a civil manner.