Assume someone breaks into your house and you confront them. They refuse to leave. You have a gun. The only way to dispose of this threat is to shoot them. Nasty business but there's no alternative.
Yet in his Ethics of Liberty Rothbard states that "under libertarian law, capital punishment would have to be confined strictly to the crime of murder. For a criminal would only lose his right to life if he had first deprived some victim of that same right."
OK so this isn't really capital punishment as the intruder hasn't been convicted but the same principle would seem to apply. The question is, under a libertarian law code, would a homeowner have no choice but to allow an intruder to ransack his home if he couldn't find a "proportionate" way to remove the intruder?
The individual has every right to protect himself and his property, and shooting him isn't the 'punishment' it is simply protecting yourself.
"The plans differ; the planners are all alike"
-Bastiat
You have the right to shoot him in self-defense, but not to kill him. Aim appropriately.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Punishing after the fact is different from preventing an on-going crime or practicing self-defense. Shoot him if you want.
Don't allow leftists to play games with definitions! Some of the libertarian-leaning leftists at this forum will try to redefine "left-wing" back to its original defition (Third Estate, limited government, free-markets, laissez-faire reforms, etc.). Fine! We non-leftists can't stop them from using their own personal definitions; they can use whatever labels they want to describe any concept they want.However, they have the audacity to then use their personal definition of "left-wing" (remember, the original definition, which is no longer valid) to prove that modern leftists are more libertarian than modern rightists! They will say that libertarianism is "inherently leftist" (again, using the original, no longer valid definition), and use that to insist that we should prefer and side with modern leftists over modern rightists.
Question their motives.
I'll be the lone dissenter here. I'd say you have the right to use deadly force only if you legitimately have a reason to think that this person is a threat to your life, not your property. However, legally, if you claim you thought you were in danger of your life, the presumption would have to be that you are not lying - considering after all that this person had broken into your house. So legally I'd be against punishing someone for doing it, but morally I have some questions.
Perhaps you can meet the minimum necessary requirement for the use of force, if deadly force is the ONLY way to get them out - although that situation is so rare that I doubt it's met in any particular case. What seems definitely not met, though, is proportionality. Suppose deadly force is the minimum action that will get you to stop stepping on my toe. Even though it meets minimum necessary, I'd say it is not justified, since it isn't proportional. You'll have to accept a person on your toe as the price of not committing a greater wrong. Same with an intruder, unless that intruder threatens your life.
I agree that everything must be proportional, but I'll deviate a bit from your position.
I think you should use the least amount of force you feel is necessary to keep you safe and protect your property (and that includes your toe).
If you would feel safe shoving someone to the ground or punching them in the face as a means of self-defense, then do it. If you feel those would result in retaliation, then you can use more.
Ego: I think you should use the least amount of force you feel is necessary to keep you safe and protect your property (and that includes your toe). If you would feel safe shoving someone to the ground or punching them in the face as a means of self-defense, then do it. If you feel those would result in retaliation, then you can use more.
Is this meant as a legal or moral position? As a legal position, I might be inclined to agree, although hesitantly. As a moral position, though, I'm not clear on what is being ruled out here. Is there any response to aggression that you might agree would be overboard? It seems that there are circumstances in which you'd approve of killing someone to protect your toe from being stepped on. Given that, I doubt there's much you'd rule out.
Certainly, I like your position more than I like a Randian "they have no rights" position, but I don't think that my emotions - my feelings - give me a moral blank check to do whatever I like to people. In fact, isn't the introduction of feelings very dangerous in and of itself? I realize that you mean to also include real aggression, but hasn't your argument justified the use of force in response to a simple perceived danger? Haven't you justified preemptive aggression?
My impression of your position is that you are inclined to take the minimum necessary rule strictly, but that you are not inclined to consider proportionality. I know you said you respect proportionality, but I don't see any weight given to it in your criteria. What you're advocating appears, if I'm not mistaken, to be a strict minimum necessary position. If you do see the importance of proportionality, how is it respected in your moral prescription?
Certainly you must have an obligation to attempt an arrest of an intruder before you shoot him. Your possession of a firearm, afterall, evens out the force relationship between you and the intruder. If you threaten him with a firearm, there isn't much that he can do back to you without dying himself.
This is the same principle that says that in war you have to give your opponent the option to surrender.
Stranger: Certainly you must have an obligation to attempt an arrest of an intruder before you shoot him. Your possession of a firearm, afterall, evens out the force relationship between you and the intruder. If you threaten him with a firearm, there isn't much that he can do back to you without dying himself. This is the same principle that says that in war you have to give your opponent the option to surrender.
But if he is also armed, shooting premptively to disable would certainly be the more prudent decision. An armed intruder on your property? If that doesn't say "clear and immediate threat", nothing does.
How about if there's more than one of them? You'd lose your advantage by declaring yourself.
I would say that shooting to disable is a good rule of thumb, unless the intruder is NOT armed, or is a child or crippled or something like that.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
warning: this post is scattered and difficult to read
My "everything must be proportional" comment makes sense only in the context of the threat that is posed to you; I shouldn't have said it.
I realize that you brought up the toe-stepping example as a bit of a joke, but let's look at it:
Under what circumstances would suspect that someone is about to step on your toe and feel confident that the toe-stepper would do nothing else? Maybe if someone is walking towards you while looking at her cell phone? In that case, no one would reasonably fear any violent backlash by saying, "excuse me" to alert her of your presence.
Not all cases are like that, of course.
If you are attacked by a man who you suspect is armed, firing a shot at his leg could easily result in your own death.The law should side with the victim, not the coecer/aggressor, and trust him/her to use necessary force to pretect his/herself.
If we are talking about intruders, it's cruel for the government to force you (at gunpoint, we are talking about a legal system) to sit idly by as someone else carries away your belongings (and to be honest, you have no guarantee that you will get them back). If you warn someone and he/she doesn't stop, you have every right to follow-through on that warning.
However, should you even be forced to warn? What if the intruder already has a weapon drawn, but you are hidden out of sight? In that case, again, the law should trust the victim to use necessary force.
The thing is that the law expects non-criminals to always use astute and keen judgment when confronted with criminals who may or may not be a threat to one's life. This is expected even though the experience can be suprising and terrifying.
Most people would never go into a person's dwelling uninvited and most people would not take things that do not belong to them and that simple order makes life pleasant and safe (asside from accidents in the shower and chokeing on unchewed meat.).
Sometimes though there is a person who ignores this natural order and they impose themselves upon us. We are supposed to be able to "know" that this person who is outrageous enough to violate your home is harmless or is a threat that goes beyond just being where they are not supposed to be?
This is quite a burden the State places on the non-criminal. It is assumed that we are supposed to be the protectors of those who behave in an unexpected manner and be able to tell what is a real threat to our lives and what is not. In situations like this the rational response is to think of your life and safety first and not be at all concerned with the intruders life and safety (since they were not concerned with thiers and yours to begin with).
In my world the intruder's family would owe the victim a free carpet cleaning.
http://www.comebackalive.com/phpBB2 Travel, Adventure Travel, Arguments, Recipes.
Ego:My "everything must be proportional" comment makes sense only in the context of the threat that is posed to you; I shouldn't have said it.
Of course, I think you should have said it, but that's beside the point.
Ego: I realize that you brought up the toe-stepping example as a bit of a joke, but let's look at it: Under what circumstances would suspect that someone is about to step on your toe and feel confident that the toe-stepper would do nothing else? Maybe if someone is walking towards you while looking at her cell phone? In that case, no one would reasonably fear any violent backlash by saying, "excuse me" to alert her of your presence.
Actually, I didn't mean it as a joke, but that's ok. Once you're basing justice on my emotions, though, just what does protect the cell-phone talker in this scenario? If I do use more violence than is necessary, but maintain that I, subjectively, felt unsure that she would not retaliate, are we obligated to say that I am still acting justly?
Ego:If you are attacked by a man who you suspect is armed, firing a shot at his leg could easily result in your own death.The law should side with the victim, not the coecer/aggressor, and trust him/her to use necessary force to pretect his/herself.
This sounds reasonable, which is why I asked if you were talking legally or morally. If you're asking what the law should do, then it might be reasonable to allow the use of deadly force in this context. I still have questions as to the details, but I'm not in major disagreement. It's when we get to the moral question that I may or may not differ, since you're only presenting your legal suggestion.
Ego:If we are talking about intruders, it's cruel for the government to force you (at gunpoint, we are talking about a legal system) to sit idly by as someone else carries away your belongings (and to be honest, you have no guarantee that you will get them back). If you warn someone and he/she doesn't stop, you have every right to follow-through on that warning.
Ok, but is it cruel for a moral code to "force" me to do so? I'd say not.
The law has to employ some reason. Someone might be so paranoid as to think that someone glancing at them constitutes a threat, and that is not acceptable. Lines have to be drawn regarding what constitutes a threat in any legal system.
As twirlcan mentioned, if someone is outrageous enough to break into your home, the law shouldn't say anything that would deter the victims from acting in self defense.
Ego:The law has to employ some reason. Someone might be so paranoid as to think that someone glancing at them constitutes a threat, and that is not acceptable. Lines have to be drawn regarding what constitutes a threat in any legal system.
Yes, but you've suggested drawing the line based on the subjective mental state of the person who does the shooting. I don't think that's a good way to draw it.
Keep in mind that the principle of defense we are establishing applies to all property. If we can kill someone who is intruding in our home, then can't the police kill someone who is intruding in a street? A warning has to be given first. A threat is established if the warning is defied.
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."
JAlanKatz: Ego:The law has to employ some reason. Someone might be so paranoid as to think that someone glancing at them constitutes a threat, and that is not acceptable. Lines have to be drawn regarding what constitutes a threat in any legal system. Yes, but you've suggested drawing the line based on the subjective mental state of the person who does the shooting. I don't think that's a good way to draw it.
Well, I'm suggesting drawing the line based on a reasonable judgement of threat. I have faith in individuals to act fairly in self-defense.
Whenever gun laws are relaxed, leftists always warn us of "blood baths in the streets", yet crime and violence generally go down. I don't think there's a need to be too concerned.
Juan:Killing or even shooting an unarmed intruder sounds to me like a criminal act itself. It is not proportional at all.
How on earth are you supposed to know they aren't armed? If they are naked?
And what if a large, naked man entered the home of a weak old woman? You would force her to fight back using her fists?
The doctrine of proportionality does not apply to self defense, only to post facto punishment. Are you willing to bet your own life on the fact that the intruder actually is unarmed or that he could overwhelm you and grab your gun if you don't fire first? If you are willing to take that bet, I hope that the odds turn out in your favor. I am unwilling to take that bet. Somebody breaks into my house, they are getting a slug in their upper body.
double-post
Ego: How on earth are you supposed to know the intruder is unarmed? If they are naked?
Mark B.: The doctrine of proportionality does not apply to self defense
Ego: Juan:Killing or even shooting an unarmed intruder sounds to me like a criminal act itself. It is not proportional at all. How on earth are you supposed to know the intruder is unarmed? If they are naked? What if a large naked man breaks into the home of a weak old woman? Will you make her fight back with her fists?
How on earth are you supposed to know the intruder is unarmed? If they are naked?
What if a large naked man breaks into the home of a weak old woman? Will you make her fight back with her fists?
She can use any weapon she wants to arrest him, but she can't simply kill him on sight unless he has threatened her life. What if the man is only a drunk?
Juan: Ego: How on earth are you supposed to know the intruder is unarmed? If they are naked? My claim is simple - shooting an unarmed person is a criminal act. You're supposed to address that, not to change the subject.
In many cases, using a firearm is the only way a weaker victim is able to defend his/herself against a stronger aggressor. There is nothing criminal about it whatsoever.
If you are the kind of tyrant who would prosecute an old woman for using a firearm in self defense against a physically fit male intruder, you belong at DemocraticUnderground.com.
What about rape victims? If an unarmed naked man is trying to rape a woman, would you want to prosecute her if she shot him? What kind of person are you?
Ego: In many cases, using a firearm is the only way a weaker victim is able to defend his/herself against a stronger aggressor. There is nothing criminal about it whatsoever. If you are the kind of tyrant who would prosecute an old woman for using a firearm in self defense against a physically fit male intruder, you belong at DemocraticUnderground.com. What about rape victims? If an unarmed naked man is trying to rape a woman, would you want to prosecute her if she shot him? What kind of person are you?
There's no need to resort to ad hominems. In The Ethics of Liberty, Rothbard addresses a tangential point - the treatment of suspects by the police. He actually allows for all manner of torture, but only if the person turns out to be guilty. That is, the cop can do what he wants to the person in custody, but with the understanding that if the person turns out to be innocent, the cop can be prosecuted. It seems that all your concerns about the lack of knowledge apply here too, so if Juan's, and my, reasoning is mistaken, then so is Rothbard's.
We have been told, again and again, that proportionality does not apply to self-defense, but we have yet to see a defense of why proportionality does not apply to self-defense. In its place, we've seen all manner of consequentialist and utilitarian defenses, which I think we can all agree do not answer the question.
Of course the doctrine of proportionality applies to self defense. I don't think anyone would argue that it's justified to shoot someone for walking across your lawn on the way to the neighbor's house.
The question is, of the range of options available to the defender, which can justly be employed in a given situation.
And yes, this can depend to some degree on the mental state of the defender - especially from a moral perspective, maybe less so from a legal one.
JAlanKatz: Ego: In many cases, using a firearm is the only way a weaker victim is able to defend his/herself against a stronger aggressor. There is nothing criminal about it whatsoever. If you are the kind of tyrant who would prosecute an old woman for using a firearm in self defense against a physically fit male intruder, you belong at DemocraticUnderground.com. What about rape victims? If an unarmed naked man is trying to rape a woman, would you want to prosecute her if she shot him? What kind of person are you? There's no need to resort to ad hominems. In The Ethics of Liberty, Rothbard addresses a tangential point - the treatment of suspects by the police. He actually allows for all manner of torture, but only if the person turns out to be guilty. That is, the cop can do what he wants to the person in custody, but with the understanding that if the person turns out to be innocent, the cop can be prosecuted. It seems that all your concerns about the lack of knowledge apply here too, so if Juan's, and my, reasoning is mistaken, then so is Rothbard's. We have been told, again and again, that proportionality does not apply to self-defense, but we have yet to see a defense of why proportionality does not apply to self-defense. In its place, we've seen all manner of consequentialist and utilitarian defenses, which I think we can all agree do not answer the question.
He was insulting, condescending, and anti-victim, so I called him a leftist tyrant. No biggie.
I have explained why punishing victims for defending themselves is evil. There is nothing wrong with being "utilitarian" about defending rights. Tell me, what would do you want to happen if a weak old woman shot a physically intimidating unarmed intruder? Punish her? What about my rape example? Would you punish the victims, too?
Juan:Ego, I love name calling and such. You said someplace else that socialist anti-war protesters should be jailed - that hardly adds to your libertarian credentials. The title of this thread is clear - shooting intruders. You can argue that it's OK to kill somebody who is trying to kill you - I have no problem with that and I'd call it self-defense. Now, the idea that it's libertarian to kill any intruders is in my not so humbly opinion, nonsense.
Please, please, please don't make things up out of thin air. Thanks, it's really misleading!
Here is the post:
Ego: JonBostwick: Ego: Good question. To be honest, I really wouldn't mind if we went to an anti-war rally and jailed every single person waving a Socialist Worker sign. On the other hand, we're never going to accomplish anything if we have that attitude! So the people who are against the state murdering people should be jailed? I say we shoot anyone who advocates using (state) violence against non-violence protesters. Sorry, ego, nothing personal. No, we don't round up everyone there, just the socialists holding the Socialist Worker signs!
JonBostwick: Ego: Good question. To be honest, I really wouldn't mind if we went to an anti-war rally and jailed every single person waving a Socialist Worker sign. On the other hand, we're never going to accomplish anything if we have that attitude! So the people who are against the state murdering people should be jailed? I say we shoot anyone who advocates using (state) violence against non-violence protesters. Sorry, ego, nothing personal.
Ego: Good question. To be honest, I really wouldn't mind if we went to an anti-war rally and jailed every single person waving a Socialist Worker sign. On the other hand, we're never going to accomplish anything if we have that attitude!
Good question. To be honest, I really wouldn't mind if we went to an anti-war rally and jailed every single person waving a Socialist Worker sign. On the other hand, we're never going to accomplish anything if we have that attitude!
So the people who are against the state murdering people should be jailed?
I say we shoot anyone who advocates using (state) violence against non-violence protesters. Sorry, ego, nothing personal.
No, we don't round up everyone there, just the socialists holding the Socialist Worker signs!
And could you address the two examples outlined in my response to you? What would you do?
Not if the intruder is a strangler. Proportionality does not equate to playing fair.
Edited.
Peace
Ego: He was insulting, condescending, and anti-victim
And could you address the two examples outlined in my response to you?
Jon: Not if the intruder is a strangler. Proportionality does equate to playing fair.
Ego:I have explained why punishing victims for defending themselves is evil. There is nothing wrong with being "utilitarian" about defending rights. Tell me, what would do you want to happen if a weak old woman shot a physically intimidating unarmed intruder? Punish her? What about my rape example? Would you punish the victims, too?
The problem is being utilitarian in determing whether or not a rights violation has occurred. Your argument, including the rape case, boil down to consequences. If we're going to be consequentialist about it, then, I should point out that your criteria make it very difficult to prosecute any murderer at all. The person accused of murder would need only to establish that they had a subjective feeling of threat - and how exactly could the prosecution disprove this claim?
No one, as far as I know, would disagree with you that "punishing victims for defending themselves" is evil. The question is just what are the bounds of self-defense. Specifically, I didn't disagree with you all that much on the legal question, certainly in the case of an intruder. I support the Castle Principle, which gives the legal benefit of the doubt to the homeowner. Having agreed, at least in obvious cases, on the legal question, the moral question remains open, and relevant. The law needs to be, in a sense, algorithmic - it needs to come up with answers in every case, and in cases where it's unclear, we need to know ahead of time which way it will lean. Morality doesn't have this pressing nature, and allows for, in my opinion, more fruitful discussions. Having established that the homeowner shouldn't be punished for his action, it still remains a question as to whether or not he acted correctly, whether or not his act was just, and what he should do.
FYI, as I discussed on other threads, I am not an Objectivist, and one of my strongest points of disagreement with Objectivism is the moral value assigned to life. I simply don't think that protecting my life outweighs other moral concerns - and I think most people can be pushed to a point where they agree, as well. Demonstrating that adherence to what I claimed as a moral conduct would lead to death will not dissuade me.
JAlanKatz:The law needs to be, in a sense, algorithmic - it needs to come up with answers in every case, and in cases where it's unclear, we need to know ahead of time which way it will lean.
That is impossible. There are an infinite number of situations that would need to be accounted for. A legal code cannot specify exactly what is legal and illegal in every conceivable situation. In fact, the attempt to do so would result in less justice, not more.
The purpose of a legal code is to establish the general principles of justice. The application of those principles to any specific case must be done by human beings - juries, judges, arbitrators, etc.
I agree with the rest of your post though.
JAlanKatz:We have been told, again and again, that proportionality does not apply to self-defense, but we have yet to see a defense of why proportionality does not apply to self-defense. In its place, we've seen all manner of consequentialist and utilitarian defenses, which I think we can all agree do not answer the question.
Let me tackle that.
Proportionality always applies, but actions during a crime and actions after a crime have different relations to the same crime, because of the factor of time.
If Joe is trespassing, I can use physical force to remove him and end the trespass. However, If I found out that Joe has previously trespassed I can not find him and batter him. My compensation would be financial only.
I'd say that deadly force is proportional during the commission of a murder, but never as an after the fact punishment.
JonBostwick: If Joe is trespassing, I can use physical force to remove him and end the trespass. However, If I found out that Joe has previously trespassed I can not find him and batter him. My compensation would be financial only. I'd say that deadly force is proportional during the commission of a murder, but never as an after the fact punishment.
Then it seems you are not arguing that proportionality doesn't apply to defense. In any case, though, I fail to see just how you can see death as proportionate to trespass.
JAlanKatz: Then it seems you are not arguing that proportionality doesn't apply to defense
JonBostwick: Proportionality always applies
Proportionality always applies
JAlanKatz: In any case, though, I fail to see just how you can see death as proportionate to trespass.
I did not intend to prove that it is.
Proportionality requires the response you give to an intruder in your front yard be different than to one in your bedroom.
Probability must play into this, and the benefit of doubt must fall towards the inhabitant. Its kind of like being robbed by someone with an unloaded gun. If someone threatens you with a gun, the assumption is that it is loaded. If we find out later the gun was empty that does not change how we look at the crime, or invalidate any attempt towards self defense.
In a fight, you do not want even odds. The idea of a fair fight does not exist. You don't know what your opponent's assets are, and for every second you take in a "fair fight" that is one seconds' less endurance that you have to fend the person off if they present a weapon - be it a knife, a gun, or even a stick. Sorry people, but that's just the facts. I've been trained in hand-to-hand, grappling, stick fighting, swordplay, and firearms. I've never been in a fair fight, not even in sparring match. Speaking with other martial artists has convinced me that fair fights don't exist. The best thing you can do is find something immediately that makes the fight unfair. Grab a stick, a knife, a gun, whatever, (or even go do some serious combatives/martial arts training) but make it clear to the person that he needs to leave or it's going to result in very serious harm, or even death. If that person refuses to leave - as the original poster clearly stated in his hypothetical situation - then his refusal implies that he has the means to press an attack against you in spite of your obviously superior position. He could be drunk, on drugs, or he could have a weapon. (Sorry, but the only time a rational person stands and fights against a weapon is if they are either desperate or armed themselves. In either case, your life is threatened. That individual is clearly either derranged, desperate, or armed.) Your only recourse at that point is to incapacitate him, that is to remove - temporarily or permanently - his ability to fight. If you fail to incapacitate them from the onset, you will in all likelihood lose. Remember: you are being attacked. You don't have the initiative unless you either have superior fighting skill to seize the initiative, or the ability to cheat to take the initiative - such as presenting a weapon.
Further, shooting to wound doesn't happen. Believe me...it looks great in the movies, but it is extremely rare off the silver screen. First off, handguns aren't that accurate. Second, your adreniline will be pumping, so your fine-tuned hand-eye coordination will be off. Yeah, you may be able to empty an entire magazine under a quarter at the shooting range, but can you do that under stress? In most cases, I'm sorry, but I'm going to say I doubt it. You always shoot center mass (chest cavity right around the heart), and you shoot in a steady pattern until the person no longer presents a threat.
Though I think we can all agree to disregard logic such as this, the participants in this thread all need to clear up their stances and be aware of any arbitrary distinctions that arise. I don't believe that anyone here is against self defense. If an "intruder" is heading directly at you with a gun drawn, we are in agreement that shooting him is okay. If he were to instead have a knife, still I think some would agree that the shooting is justified. Where we seem to be coming into conflict, and it is probably all semantic, is if the "intruder" is unarmed. If he is charging at you with a raised fist and mad glint in his eye, some think shooting him is acceptable. Some of you, however, point out that it is possible that even though he is obviously attempting to hurt you, he may not be intending to kill you, and therefore shooting him in the head is unacceptable. With the Gun scenario, it is clear that shooting him in the leg will hardly curb the intruders ability to kill you, so lethal force is allowed. With the others, it could be argued that a leg shot is all that is necessary.
There have been some jabs and jokes about toes and neighbors walking across your lawn, but I want to make one thing clear: if your property is in question, under normal and guilt-free circumstances, you have complete jurisdiction over it. But before you decide that I must be that guy with the "trespassers will be shot" sign on my fence, hear me out. If I have jurisdiction over my property, I therefore have the right to make sure that any unwanted persons will be removed. I have a right to not have you sitting in my living room, yes? Or can you barge in whenever you please, like a sitcom?
If an intruder entered your house and attempted to assault you, they are clearly demonstrating a complete lack of recognition of your jurisdiction over your property--he refuses to leave, and on top of that, tries to attack your own person. Is he not, according to Rothbard, implicitly declaring a lack of jurisdiction over his own? So what's wrong with shooting him? I believe the answer is nothing.
I also get the feeling that many of you are making a moral distinction between killing and maiming, which is not necessarily wrong, but very interesting to me. In your nonlethal scenario, once we've shot the intruder, there are obviously an infinite number of ways of removing the knife from the suspect and incapacitating him, not merely shooting him in the head. But if killing is inhumane, does that mean that anything shy of it is not? What if we then worked out a plan to shoot every major tendon in his body, as well as his hands, feet, kneecaps and elbows (oh, and shoulders!) so as to minimize the risk to our person as much as possible before rolling him out the door? I believe you all are making a mistake in determining that killing is objectively worse than maiming. Yes, it happens to be that in 99% of healthy people, their number-one priority is living. Their life is the most important thing. But haven't you seen movies with torture scenes, etc.? When situations change, people's priorities change. Suddenly, when before they were screaming "Stop, you're going to kill me!" they begin screaming "Stop! Please kill me!" Your body is your property, whether your most valuable or otherwise. And its value is subjective. And if the value of your property in your mind can change, is it not reasonable that your permitted abilities with regards to protecting it should be constant, no matter what its value to you at that particular moment? Protecting your carpet or T.V., no matter how insane it will inevitably make you [look], is actually the same as protecting your physical well-being.
Obviously this scenario isn't exactly realistic, as one would actually leave a body to be documented to help prove your innocence, etc. And obviously this can all be taken to extremes, but I suppose I should address the most likely scenarios that will be brought against me. Scenarios of people walking across lawns and therefore giving me the right to shoot them through my living room window are fallacious. Why? Because there is a social subtext to things like yards and walkways that lead to front doors. People use that to approach and attempt to communicate. There is a general understanding (at least in most societies) that one may walk up to your door and knock without being fired upon. Now, if I haven't taken my medication and I respond to the knock, and open the door brandishing a loaded gun and demanding that they get the F*** off my "propertaye" they would hopefully do so. If they refuse they find might a bullet in their chest. Yeah, I won't be making friends or getting invitations to community picnics, but that's purely because I stupidly chose to sidestep any and all social courtesies.
The verbal warning is not a necessary prerequisite to the use of force, especially in cases like a man with a gun barging into your bedroom. What it is, is a very effective tool for determining whether or not someone intends to harm you, steal something, or any other form of violating your jurisdiction over your property. Because in all honesty it can be very vague, and telling them that you are going to stop what they are doing by any means necessary unless they get the hell away from you or off your property is a FANTASTIC way of clearing it up. But it is, as I said, a social courtesy and nothing more.
Saying that will likely rile up some angry responses, and some will say that I'm advocating rampant, thoughtless violence, etc. But consider this: people get away with murder all the time. You may not like it, but they do. All it takes is being alone, and you can often do what you want. There's no way to fully stop that on a civilian-to-civilian basis, aside from Big Brother, but that adds a whole new slew of problems. And I think we can all agree on that.
Arbitrator:If an intruder entered your house and attempted to assault you, they are clearly demonstrating a complete lack of recognition of your jurisdiction over your property--he refuses to leave, and on top of that, tries to attack your own person. Is he not, according to Rothbard, implicitly declaring a lack of jurisdiction over his own? So what's wrong with shooting him? I believe the answer is nothing.
This is what Rothbard really said
Secondly, we may ask: must we go along with those libertarians who claim that a storekeeper has the right to kill a lad as punishment for snatching a piece of his bubble gum? What we might call the “maximalist” position goes as follows: by stealing the bubble gum, the urchin puts himself outside the law. He demonstrates by his action that he does not hold or respect the correct theory of property rights. Therefore, he loses all of his rights, and the storekeeper is within his rights to kill the lad in retaliation.
I propose that this position suffers from a grotesque lack of proportion. By concentrating on the storekeeper’s right to his bubble gum, it totally ignores another highly precious property-right: every man’s—including the urchin’s—right of self-ownership. On what basis must we hold that a minuscule invasion of another’s property lays one forfeit to the total loss of one’s own? I propose another fundamental rule regarding crime: the criminal, or invader, loses his own right to the extent that he has deprived another man of his. If a man deprives another man of some of his self-ownership or its extension in physical property, to that extent does he lose his own rights.[5] From this principle immediately derives the proportionality theory of punishment-best summed up in the old adage: “let the punishment fit the crime.”
Though your quote is about punishment (Post Facto), you bring up an interesting point. But there is something in my above post that you failed to note that is incredibly relevant: the fact that value is subjective (something I doubt you disagree with). Most people in the Western world are familiar with the concept of "let the punishment fit the crime." And of course, it is not meant to be taken literally--conversions must be made. Smashing a window no longer means that the State will in turn smash your window. But how does one accurately create equivalent punishments for a crime? With human guesswork. They can never really know the true intensity of the infraction because whatever was damaged held a subjective value to its owner that was probably unique when compared to anyone else's in the world. True, it is easier when it comes to things that get damaged, but it is not always so simple. I am not disagreeing with you necessarily, but I don't believe that system is any more exact than the human guesswork that goes into deciding whether or not someone is a "threat."