It's dark out when an individual trespasses onto your property, picks the lock on your front door and proceeds to loot your home. You watch the thief silently, making note of his appearance. Finally, as he begins to leave, you fire a shot into his left thigh. Despite his injury the thief escapes.
The next morning you spot a man wearing the same outfit you lost last night with a large wound on his left thigh. "Thief!" you shout. The man in question looks at you with terror in his eyes and flees. You chase after him with ease and pin him to the ground.
At this point, if you kill the thief, are you still in the right? In other words...
Is there an expiration date on retribution for aggression?
Also, if this question has already been covered by one of the Austrian authors, please indicate which book and I will go read it. :)
Why in the world would you be able to kill a person who robbed you...especially one running away from you.
Like nibbler said, you would not be justified in shooting the robber later. You may have been when he invaded your home because you felt some amount of fear for your life.
I am actually a bit confused about what I was reading and will mark one part with a * so someone can explain better, but I am pretty sure about the rest.
Unlike positivist legal systems (rape is 3-5 years in jail or whatever), libertarian punishment theory only sets a maximum limit for punishment. You could choose, even stipulate in your will, to totally forgive a thief or murderer. Likewise, you could agree on $X instead of whatever the punishment would have been.
The theory is about retribution. Besides getting back what you are owed, you are entitled to the "costs of capture". A lot of times that may be something paid to the private security firm you have hired. In this case though, maybe you took off that morning and spent a quarter tank of gas driving around the neighborhood because you thought the thief was that one local punk kid.
Another added cost to the criminal is what Walter Block calls "a premium for scaring". In your case, nobody was killed so the criminal does not "owe a life". I suspect this premium would usually be translated to currency, but Block explains that the criminal actually should be forced to play Russian roulette with the # of bullets proportional to the number of chambers based on how big of a threat that was posed.
If the neighbor's son jumped your fence when you are away on vacation and grabbed something from your yard, this might be 1 bullet to thousands of chambers. If a criminal with a history of violence took your family hostage for hours, held a knife to your wife's throat and said several times he would kill you all, you might get pretty close to a fully loaded revolver.
*This theory isn't often talked about and can raise a lot of questions. The basic part about retribution is described as "one tooth (or two teeth) for a tooth" somewhere, meaning I think:
You get back the item that was taken from you, but also "the criminal has what he did, done to him as well". So, a thief takes your car and now owes you two cars plus the premiums I noted? For some reason this seems odd to me. I also don't know how punishment could be decided on if someone has destroyed something unique like a Mona Lisa
Also, the theory centers around (vs. positivist state legal systems) no central figure between parties A and B with a monopoly on violence and serving justice. If that is true, who decides the number of bullets and chambers for what I like to call the "terror premium"? Is the answer that you track down the criminal with the thigh wound and negotiate a 6 bullet, 20 chamber murder machine setup after he refuses to agree to some monetary payment? When is arbitration compulsory? When is imprisonment justified?
-----
Anyhow, to answer the question I thought was going to be asked in this thread:
As long as the punishment is correct, there should be no expiration date on justice being served. Like in the case of the Nuremberg Trials, there is no problem with ex post facto, or "after the fact" law. I could decree that 30 babies must be killed every Tuesday and it would violate libertarian principles no matter what.
I was afraid I was going to get replies from people who prefer the proportionality argument.
I know of a few people who hold similar enough views to my own; if they haven't replied by now I doubt they will. That's okay, I'll keep thinking on it.
Missed this one.
I don't think killing him is reasonable if we are talking about restitution. I agree that excessive force can be used in self-defense, that one cannot err on the side of caution when someone else has initiated violence.
I don't think there is a limit on restitution, but I do think that killing a guy who stole our jacket, when you can recover the jacket without deadly force is totally inappropriate.
liberty student: Missed this one. I don't think killing him is reasonable if we are talking about restitution. I agree that excessive force can be used in self-defense, that one cannot err on the side of caution when someone else has initiated violence. I don't think there is a limit on restitution, but I do think that killing a guy who stole our jacket, when you can recover the jacket without deadly force is totally inappropriate.
How is there not a limit on restitution? In fact, the very definition of restitution is based around a specific limit("being made whole").
Daniel Waite: The next morning you spot a man wearing the same outfit you lost last night with a large wound on his left thigh. "Thief!" you shout. The man in question looks at you with terror in his eyes and flees. You chase after him with ease and pin him to the ground. At this point, if you kill the thief, are you still in the right? In other words...
You can sue for restitution here, but it would not be ethically valid to even punch this man. This is initiation of aggression, and moreover, you cannot even be 100% sure that it's the man! It could be his twin brother who happens to have a similar taste in clothes to you. You could have unwittingly eaten psychoactive substances and mis-seen the person who robbed you - there are a million ways in which you could feel certain and still be wrong. Thus, you would be acting unethically to initiate aggression against this individual.
The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community.
Daniel Waite: I was afraid I was going to get replies from people who prefer the proportionality argument. I know of a few people who hold similar enough views to my own; if they haven't replied by now I doubt they will. That's okay, I'll keep thinking on it.
What else is there? I can't think of any tenable argument for outright killing someone just for the part about them robbing you. Maybe you should explain your beliefs and what it has to do with the OP. I think the bounds are set by what is necessary to capture. You could maybe also use force up to some limit based on the "terror premium" part of the theory at your own risk. Say the thief has terrorized you and would be found in a 5/6 chambers situation, maybe you would be in essence on trial after the fact.
nibbler491:How is there not a limit on restitution? In fact, the very definition of restitution is based around a specific limit("being made whole").
I should have been more precise. I meant a time limit, but reading back, I'm not sure that is what DW was referring to.
Who do you think is going to insure you if you're going around shooting people because their dog urinated on your lawn a few years back?
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
liberty student:I should have been more precise. I meant a time limit, but reading back, I'm not sure that is what DW was referring to.
You're correct. I did mean a time limit (thus, expiration date). I can see how "the following day" generates absence of aggression on the part of the thief. Tackling him the following day would be initiatory aggression on my part.
@analog: See this thread for my view on the use of force to defend any infraction of property rights. That thread was (needlessly, in my opinion) locked, but it covers the gamut well, and I hope to keep this thread open by not repeating the sentiments expressed in the linked thread.
GilesStratton:Who do you think is going to insure you if you're going around shooting people because their dog urinated on your lawn a few years back?
Well, according to my new interpretation of the material, aggression met with aggression-past is initiatory, and thus evil. So, the question of "who will insure me" is a distraction, for I will probably be in jail (or be bothered with some other severe penalty for murder).
Daniel Waite:It's dark out when an individual trespasses onto your property, picks the lock on your front door and proceeds to loot your home. You watch the thief silently, making note of his appearance. Finally, as he begins to leave, you fire a shot into his left thigh. Despite his injury the thief escapes.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Daniel Waite:I did mean a time limit (thus, expiration date). I can see how "the following day" generates absence of aggression on the part of the thief. Tackling him the following day would be initiatory aggression on my part.
I did mean a time limit (thus, expiration date). I can see how "the following day" generates absence of aggression on the part of the thief. Tackling him the following day would be initiatory aggression on my part.
Hmm... I think this also answers the question of kidnap, and such, too, that has been troubling me. Say you disabled the thief (rendered him unconscious), and dragged him into your basement and tied him up.
Hrm, nay, more mist is rolling in. I imagine if you *only* tied him up, and then contacted your PDA and made arrangements for restitution, then... all would be well?
But to torture the thief while held captive, becomes initiatory aggression, for at that moment, the thief poses no threat.
Interesting... The idea of initiatory aggression is strong. It allows for greater flexibility when determining justice in these difficult scenarios. I like it.
Juan:So, you're not interested in stopping the thief - if you were, you would have done things differently, rather, you're some sort of right wing nut who likes to shoot at people when given an excuse. I've no sympathy for thieves. I've no sympathy for trigger-happy 'libertarians' either.
So, you're not interested in stopping the thief - if you were, you would have done things differently, rather, you're some sort of right wing nut who likes to shoot at people when given an excuse.
I've no sympathy for thieves. I've no sympathy for trigger-happy 'libertarians' either.
Hi Juan. In the scenario I attempted to stop the thief. He got away.
Per my last post, each moment in time the thief was on my property without my consent was aggression. That I waited a bit to shoot him is irrelevant. Had I shot him after he left my property it would have been a different story.
Daniel Waite:Hi Juan. In the scenario I attempted to stop the thief. He got away.
Per my last post, each moment in time the thief was on my property without my consent was aggression.
That I waited a bit to shoot him is irrelevant.
Had I shot him after he left my property it would have been a different story.
Daniel Waite:Well, according to my new interpretation of the material, aggression met with aggression-past is initiatory, and thus evil. So, the question of "who will insure me" is a distraction, for I will probably be in jail (or be bothered with some other severe penalty for murder).
There are no jails in a stateless society, except voluntary ones in which those who attend their will do so in order to pay off debts.
The fact of the matter is you can justify almost everything with this idea of yours, and by extension, nothing.
Juan: Daniel Waite:Hi Juan. In the scenario I attempted to stop the thief. He got away. Your fictional story is not complete. You are in your house. You see a thief breaking in and don't try to stop him. You hide somewhere and when the thief is leaving you shoot him. From the information you gave, I may fill the blanks in any way I like. Per my last post, each moment in time the thief was on my property without my consent was aggression. Yes, nobody denied that ? That I waited a bit to shoot him is irrelevant. I don't think so. The way your hypothetical scenario was described suggests that you were not interested in preventing robbery but in shooting the thief. Had I shot him after he left my property it would have been a different story. Why ? You're shooting him because he's a trespasser ? So the part about robbery is irrelevant. And we're back to the ridiculous 'justification' for shooting trespassers.
In that high of a stressful situation I don't think the person who's house is being broken into can be expected to act rational. He may feel his or his families life is at peril, and the fight or flight/ hyper adrenline feeling can kick in. It is no fun to be in that situation, it can happen to someone five times and they could act differently all five times. I wouldn't be so quick to call the person "trigger happy", though that may well be the case.
I wouldn't be so quick to call the person "trigger happy", though that may well be the case.
GilesStratton: There are no jails in a stateless society, except voluntary ones in which those who attend their will do so in order to pay off debts.
Since when? What about the truely violent criminals, ie the serial killers and rapists ? I suppose a very rich serial rapist could continue to rape as long as he paid his 'debt'.
I will grant you that most criminals would probably be paying restitution, but for violent criminals I dont see how that could be viewed as acceptable.
Juan: I wouldn't be so quick to call the person "trigger happy", though that may well be the case. The whole point of a legal system is to know what really happened...Maybe Mr Smith's hobby is to shoot people when given the flimsiest of excuses ? In the name of 'freedom' ?
Yes the point of a legal system is to know what happend. But if it is proven there was a break and enter, the burden of proof can not be put on the man who shot. I would find it very hard to pin the blame on the home owner, probably near impossible in an unbiased setting. Also, how rational can we expect this guy to act. I would say not very rational at all. He is in a potentially very traumatic situation that is forced upon him.
Also, the post didn't go into specifics why there was hesitation, I think in the spirit of the post, it should be assumed the guy who's house is getting broken into is not some right wing blood thirsty A1 nut job or some other sadistic bastard.
nevermind, I miss read the OP where he kills the criminal the next day, that is almost certainly excessive use of violence. I read it all as one fluid action, where this was all taking place in his home in a relativly short time frame. My bad, should have read the thread more carefully before posting.
I still say that it would be near impossible to prove me as malicously murdering an agressive intruder on my property, and that during the break in the home owner can not be held accountable for much rational action.
sicsempertyrannis:Since when?
Since it's not a practical business model.
sicsempertyrannis:I will grant you that most criminals would probably be paying restitution, but for violent criminals I dont see how that could be viewed as acceptable.
It's more likely that they'll be kicked out from any place they try to live, their assets will be frozen etc.
GilesStratton: sicsempertyrannis:Since when? Since it's not a practical business model.
Maybe if their restitution was X years of slavery, or if certain protection agencies pay a private prison system to keep them incarcerated to protect their customers.
sicsempertyrannis:Maybe if their restitution was X years of slavery, or if certain protection agencies pay a private prison system to keep them incarcerated to protect their customers.
I'd say it'd simply be easier, cheaper and more effective to watch certain individuals who are suspect, as I said, it'd be even easier than that to contract with road or community owners banning certian individuals (another point for manorialism, by the way).