OK, not really. I am not a shopkeeper. But if I were, I might shoot bubblegum thieves - under certain conditions. And it has nothing to do with any signs posted at the entrance.This problem was brought to attention here and discussed here.Rather than derail the first topic or necromance the second, degraded one, I am going to say it here.Consider this scenario. A shopkeeper spots a bubblegum thief. He locks the entrance door and confronts the thief. He demands the thief relinquish the bubblegum. The thief refuses. The shopkeeper threatens to take the bubblegum by force. The thief points out that he is twice the size of the shopkeeper. The shopkeeper produces a firearm and threatens to shoot the thief, if he does not immediately surrender the bubblegum. The thief refuses to. The shopkeeper shoots the thief (in the leg) and then takes his bubblegum from the wounded thief.Can anybody honestly object to this? You may find it distasteful of the shopkeeper to care so much about his bubblegum and I myself would certainly prefer to live in a place where shopkeepers were not willing to do this, but there is nothing that can be done against a shopkeeper in these circumstances in a court of law. To claim the shopkeeper's shooting is not justified, is not libertarian it is Tolstoyan.And to turn the tables. Imagine that instead of a bubblegum thief we have a drugged (and therefore unresponsive to shouts) person who is torturing a pet or raping a person. Lets say our shopkeeper (who is an accomplished marksman) spots this taking place a few hundred yards away from his ship and after calling out to the perpetrator to stop shoots him (aiming for the center of gravity) and mortally wounds him. Do you now like the firearms brandishing shopkeeper and want him for your neighbour? Of course you do. It is irrelevant if rape of a person or a torture of an owned animal is not in the same rank as killing. If somebody is doing this, and if it is not within the means of the people who would stop him to stop him in a different way, then he is viable to get killed. While his crime is taking place the liberation of his victim takes precedence before his life.The bubblegum scenario is not different from the rape scenario. It only differs in degree, but not in structure.
Also I wonder why is there such a knee-jerk reaction in favour of the bubblegum thief. I suspect it has to do with 'rooting for the underdog'. A bubblegum thief seems the poor underdog compared to an armed shopkeeper thus a natural reaction in his favour. But I find this misplaced. If somebody wishes to root for the underdog then it is imperative that he does not hamper ability of people to defend themselves and each other.The thing about not shooting trespassers is a perfect example. What better way to aid the Empire and tie the hands of underdog guerilla movements than to proclaim it is not right to shoot at trespassers. Of course it is right - if that is the only way that they will leave.
Marko: OK, not really. I am not a shopkeeper. But if I were, I might shoot bubblegum thieves - under certain conditions. And it has nothing to do with any signs posted at the entrance.This problem was brought to attention here and discussed here.Rather than derail the first topic or necromance the second, degraded one, I am going to say it here.Consider this scenario. A shopkeeper spots a bubblegum thief. He locks the entrance door and confronts the thief. He demands the thief relinquish the bubblegum. The thief refuses. The shopkeeper threatens to take the bubblegum by force. The thief points out that he is twice the size of the shopkeeper. The shopkeeper produces a firearm and threatens to shoot the thief, if he does not immediately surrender the bubblegum. The thief refuses to. The shopkeeper shoots the thief (in the leg) and then takes his bubblegum from the wounded thief.Can anybody honestly object to this? You may find it distasteful of the shopkeeper to care so much about his bubblegum and I myself would certainly prefer to live in a place where shopkeepers were not willing to do this, but there is nothing that can be done against a shopkeeper in these circumstances in a court of law. To claim the shopkeeper's shooting is not justified, is not libertarian it is Tolstoyan.
OK, not really. I am not a shopkeeper. But if I were, I might shoot bubblegum thieves - under certain conditions. And it has nothing to do with any signs posted at the entrance.This problem was brought to attention here and discussed here.Rather than derail the first topic or necromance the second, degraded one, I am going to say it here.Consider this scenario. A shopkeeper spots a bubblegum thief. He locks the entrance door and confronts the thief. He demands the thief relinquish the bubblegum. The thief refuses. The shopkeeper threatens to take the bubblegum by force. The thief points out that he is twice the size of the shopkeeper. The shopkeeper produces a firearm and threatens to shoot the thief, if he does not immediately surrender the bubblegum. The thief refuses to. The shopkeeper shoots the thief (in the leg) and then takes his bubblegum from the wounded thief.Can anybody honestly object to this? You may find it distasteful of the shopkeeper to care so much about his bubblegum and I myself would certainly prefer to live in a place where shopkeepers were not willing to do this, but there is nothing that can be done against a shopkeeper in these circumstances in a court of law. To claim the shopkeeper's shooting is not justified, is not libertarian it is Tolstoyan.
Only read till here.
The shooting is unnecessarily violent. You will incur more costs from the shooting than from retrieving the bubblegum. I would say it's reckless endangerment for the neighborhood and would report you to get a bad rating.
Context is also important. In a modern society there are far better ways of dealing with such a thief, and the decision to lock the door and demand-or-shoot would be especially reckless. In a more primitive society (but still libertarian) people will take justice more in their own hands and be rougher; they have to.
In general though I think it's psychopathic to shoot a bubble gum thief. This is not how you create a safe society nor a wealthy society (in general nor for individual business owners).
On the matter of sympathy, I think most would be on the side of the thief. At least in regards to an excessive use of force. The reality is though, what matters is culture and most importantly the use of decentralized tort law in this scenario. Centralized nation-sate progressive law is what may distort everything.
On the matter of practicality, I do not think most would shoot the thief. I have been in several situations like this, I never had it in my mind to even carry a gun in my business as it would more probably produce a bad result than a good one (I was an entrepreneur, NOT a warrior). For me personally, it was best to avoid violence as much as possible for very practical reasons. The reality here is that it is impossible to imply a theoretical modal to individual circumstances. This is part of entrepreneurship, this is something that can not be calculated by anything but the individual.
The knee jerk reaction probably comes from a perceived excessive use of force, and not so much rooting for the under-dog. Most people value a knee cap much higher than they value bubblegum, hence the perceived injustice, in this case I would tend to agree. Laws protecting from an excessive use of force would serve me much more than hamper me; and that is the point of law, to serve me.
In most cases there are probably much more "reasonable" ways to handle the situation; for example if you would value the bubble gum THAT much it could be probably kept in a safer location (behind a lock glass, behind counter, etc), this is somethings that would require a criminal to act much more dramatic and violent when stealing your item (A man walking behind YOUR counter is essentially threatening your life). It could also be seen as your responsibility to be able to protect your property within the appropriate reasonable context.
PS. I love Tolstoy more than most philosophers.
I would agree that in the scenario that you have established that it is perfectly just for the shopkeeper to use force against the bubblegum bandit because:
However, if the shopkeeper does shoot the thief under circumstances that most people do not agree with he may be setting himself up for failure. Persons who disagree with his actions would not have a right to use force against him but could instead refrain from trading with him.
Nielsio: Context is also important. In a modern society there are far better ways of dealing with such a thief,
Context is also important. In a modern society there are far better ways of dealing with such a thief,
But lets say there weren't. Lets say that the shopkeeper has reason to believe that if he lets the thief walk out with his bubblegum he will never see it again. (Some sort of a riot-looting situation perhaps?)
Dondoolee:if you would value the bubble gum THAT much it could be probably kept in a safer location (behind a lock glass, behind counter, etc)
Yes. This would raise suspicion. But lets for the sake of the argument say that we know for a fact that the shopkeeper had no ulterior motive in keeping the bubblegum in an insecure location. Ie that it was not a bait.
Marko:Yes. This would raise suspicion. But lets for the sake of the argument say that we know for a fact that the shopkeeper had no ulterior motive in keeping the bubblegum in an insecure location. Ie that it was not a bait.
I think this could easily be put into poor entrepreneurial calculation. Believe me, if it is an issue and the business owner is half way competent this won't happen, it can't or the business gets sunk. Those little loose candy treats most grocery stores that people pick at, calculate a loss of food cost. If it was an issue they wouldn't have them out in the open. In other words, when a person opens a business they usually have a decent idea how to sell the products to their advantage (i.e. they won't put make or break stock in an easy to steal location). If the only way to offer the product is out in the open and people keep stealing from it to a major determent of the business owner, the product won't exist for long.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think I may have latched on to your train of thought; and I think if the thief were convicted it would not be for the bubble gum theft.
the crime:
1) Thief steals bubblegum (this is most likely a misdemeanor crime in most cultures)
2) You notice and try to prevent the thief to stop by locking the doors: we will assume this is considerd a reasonable action, this is perhaps debatable but we won't do that here. We will just assume the shop keeper is in the right the point being the nature of the crime is going to change. Both participants have most likely escalated the severity of any legal conditions in the culture.
3) The thief persists and makes a physical threat (perhaps this should elevate the severity of his crime and perhaps it could elevate the course of your action, this may be no longer the same charge)
4) You produce a gun.
I think it is possible to argue the nature of the crime and actions of the two have changed. This is not: "Thief steals 5 cent bubblegum you blow his legs off". This is an escalating series of actions, the end result is not just a case of "bubble gum stealing vs gun". By the end the actual bubble gum theft and perhaps your initial preventive action are merely secondary and only a catalyst to the major issue of legal dispute.
EDIT: point 2
You should only hear four words from the bubblegum thief when you confront them...
"Don't taze me, bro!"
"All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree." -James Madison
"If government were efficient, it would cease to exist."
Dondoolee: Correct me if I am wrong, but I think I may have latched on to your train of thought; and I think if the thief were convicted it would not be for the bubble gum theft. the crime: ... I think it is possible to argue the nature of the crime and actions of the two have changed. This is not: "Thief steals 5 cent bubblegum you blow his legs off". This is an escalating series of actions, the end result is not just a case of "bubble gum stealing vs gun". By the end the actual bubble gum theft and perhaps your initial preventive action are merely secondary and only a catalyst to the major issue of legal dispute.
...
No, that is not it. Everything between the theft and the shooting is only to try to show that there is indeed no other way for the shopkeeper to get his bubblegum back other than to incapacitate him and then take it from his body. For this to be true the thief has to behave in an unrealistic manner, yes, but so what.
Marko:No, that is not it. Everything between the theft and the shooting is only to try to show that there is indeed no other way for the shopkeeper to get his bubblegum back other than to incapacitate him and then take it from his body. For this to be true the thief has to behave in an unrealistic manner, yes, but so what
I am not talking about the thief or shop keep acting realistically, it is about the actual action of the thief and shop keep and I think most people would find the action of "Thief physically threatens shop keep so shop keep pulls gun" the real issue.
If you wanted bubblegum stealing to be the issue the actual scenario would be:
1) Thief steals bubblegum
2) I shoot him
Anything else is adding to the context and changing the conditions.
ex:
2) I yell stop
3) Thief doesn't stop
4) I shoot him
This is different. In this case I tried to prevent the thief from sealing vocally ( a less severe form of protecting property), the thief refused to listen, I then escalate with a gun. If all I cared about was stealing bubblegum for an example I would see no need to add extra context. Anytime I add extra context I add to the nature of the legal action.
ex 2:
2) I close doors on thief
3) Thief refuses to hand over bubblegum
4) thief threatens me
5) I shoot him
This is even more different, physically stopping by the shop keep and physically threatening by the thief adds two more (in most peoples eyes) much more serious conditions. Either the closing of the doors or the physical threat in this situation ought to be the crime under most conditions
Lets try to think more about the analogous rape scenario. You would kill a rapist if that was the only way to stop a rape in progress. So how can you object to someone who will shoot a thief in the leg if that is the only he can stop a theft in progress?A hole in the leg is worse than a stolen bubblegum. But then death is worse than being raped. Measuring what is worse does not apply. A bad thing to an aggressor is better than a bad thing to a victim. A person does not have an obligation to accept any amount of victimisation of himself, even when doing so means the criminal is spared some very bad effect for him. In the bubblegum scenario the thief effectively shot himself. He can not use his right not to get shot as some sort of a shield to enable him to get away with making victims of people.
Dondoolee: I am not talking about the thief or shop keep acting realistically, it is about the actual action of the thief and shop keep and I think most people would find the action of "Thief physically threatens shop keep so shop keep pulls gun" the real issue.
No. It is the shopkeeper who makes this threat. He wants to know if it is possible for him to get his bubblegum back merely by threatening to shoot.
Dondoolee: If you wanted bubblegum stealing to be the issue the actual scenario would be: 1) Thief steals bubblegum 2) I shoot him
I can do this. The shopkeep has no real obligation to take intermediary steps before shooting. If he can later convincingly show that he had every reason to believe that nothing less would suffice to get his bubblegum back.
Dondoolee:This is not: "Thief steals 5 cent bubblegum you blow his legs off". This is an escalating series of actions
I agree.
I think what makes the shopkeeper seem more within his rights(which was marko's attempt) is because his ultimate use of force was only after a series of escalations, which is how law works.
First you get your mortgage bill, then you get the eviction notice, then you get kicked out, if you should resist the evictor he has the right to self defense.
"I'm going to move you out of this house, and I have the right to keep you from stopping me"
Peace
Marko:A hole in the leg is worse than a stolen bubblegum. But then death is worse than being raped. Measuring what is worse does not apply.
Objective measurement is impossible. This is one of the many bat shit reasons our Progressives and social democratic society is insane; the desire to centralize law to Millions (billions?) of people, That is why only decentralized tort law can work best for an individual. It makes the law work for the person, and it is only through custom president trial and error can this be effective. Centralized Nation State Progressive law retards that to the extreme.
When I say I think the person acts with "excessive force" this is just an opinion. I doubt the law would be working to most individuals advantage if this type of philosophy was allowed, it seems to allow business owners to be overly "negligent" with property and to act with too little discretion for most. Measuring what is reasonable can only be taken within the context of culture; measuring what is profitable (in the context of an individuals relation to law) can only be maximized by decentralizing as much as possible.
JonBostwick: Dondoolee:This is not: "Thief steals 5 cent bubblegum you blow his legs off". This is an escalating series of actions I agree. I think what makes the shopkeeper seem more within his rights(which was marko's attempt) is because his ultimate use of force was only after a series of escalations, which is how law works.
Then consider a guerilla in a resistance movement who does not go through a series of escalating actions. He does not first protest peacefully and spray around anti-occupation graffiti. He takes up a rifle and starts shooting at the trespassers on the very first day. According to you he is a criminal. But in reality whether he is a criminal depends on whether the peaceful demonstrations would be effective or not.
Marko:According to you he is a criminal. But in reality whether he is a criminal depends on whether the peaceful demonstrations would be effective or not.
I didn't say that.
Law works the way it does because of moral hazard. Anyone can shoot anyone and then say "I had no choice." The public will reply, "prove it".
JonBostwick: Marko:According to you he is a criminal. But in reality whether he is a criminal depends on whether the peaceful demonstrations would be effective or not. I didn't say that. Law works the way it does because of moral hazard. Anyone can shoot anyone and then say "I had no choice." The public will reply, "prove it".
Then what exactly are you arguing? I am arguing the ethical right to shoot given the conditions. I am not speculating about court procedures in a stateless society. That is beyond the scope.
My position is you have the right to reclaim your property with the minimal amount of force necessary. (A somewhat separate issue from imposing a proportional restitution on the criminal)
JonBostwick: My position is you have the right to reclaim your property with the minimal amount of force necessary.
My position is you have the right to reclaim your property with the minimal amount of force necessary.
I am glad we are of one mind.
Nielsio: Marko: OK, not really. I am not a shopkeeper. But if I were, I might shoot bubblegum thieves - under certain conditions. And it has nothing to do with any signs posted at the entrance.This problem was brought to attention here and discussed here.Rather than derail the first topic or necromance the second, degraded one, I am going to say it here.Consider this scenario. A shopkeeper spots a bubblegum thief. He locks the entrance door and confronts the thief. He demands the thief relinquish the bubblegum. The thief refuses. The shopkeeper threatens to take the bubblegum by force. The thief points out that he is twice the size of the shopkeeper. The shopkeeper produces a firearm and threatens to shoot the thief, if he does not immediately surrender the bubblegum. The thief refuses to. The shopkeeper shoots the thief (in the leg) and then takes his bubblegum from the wounded thief.Can anybody honestly object to this? You may find it distasteful of the shopkeeper to care so much about his bubblegum and I myself would certainly prefer to live in a place where shopkeepers were not willing to do this, but there is nothing that can be done against a shopkeeper in these circumstances in a court of law. To claim the shopkeeper's shooting is not justified, is not libertarian it is Tolstoyan. Only read till here. The shooting is unnecessarily violent. You will incur more costs from the shooting than from retrieving the bubblegum. I would say it's reckless endangerment for the neighborhood and would report you to get a bad rating. Context is also important. In a modern society there are far better ways of dealing with such a thief, and the decision to lock the door and demand-or-shoot would be especially reckless. In a more primitive society (but still libertarian) people will take justice more in their own hands and be rougher; they have to. In general though I think it's psychopathic to shoot a bubble gum thief. This is not how you create a safe society nor a wealthy society (in general nor for individual business owners).
Don't know; there's always the whole deterrent factor to consider. Consequences are an important part of a safe and wealthy society.
And this is the exact problem with Rothbardian rationalism. You guys will never stop quibbling over these sorts of questions until you realise that you can't answer them. You don't know what the consequences of a particular legal structure will. Nor do I, but I will hazard a guess that any formal institutional structure that allows a store owner to shoot bubble gum thieves won't be adhered to for too long, and thankfully so.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
hayekianxyz:And this is the exact problem with Rothbardian rationalism. You guys will never stop quibbling over these sorts of questions until you realise that you can't answer them.
Explain to me how a human being will never answer such questions when the thread is obviously humans answering such a question.