Brainpolice said:For example, one's ownership over their home, even if it is a just case of ownership, does not give you the right to assault and murder people just because they are in one's home. In other words, property rights do not trump life and liberty.
That strikes me as odd. I thought... well, I remember reading two very poignant scenarios in which consistency in justice must prevail over liberal morality if consistency is to be maintained.
One example was that a man who has been lost in the woods for days and is on the verge of dying comes onto your cabin property and begins shuffling through your kitchen. You shoot him. Are you in the wrong or the right? The article said in the right -- for you were defending your property.
If you invite a friend over for dinner and then shank him as soon as he enters the door, well, that certainly feels different, but why is one okay and not the other (at least according to my understanding of BP's statements)?
nibbler491:You're misrepresenting him again, despite him repeating OVER and OVER that he is not advocating against self-defense. He is arguing against using ASYMMETRICAL force against someone. If you believe your life is being threatened(like it is in your scenario), then you absolutely have the right to protect yourself, even if that means killing that person.
I'm not misrepresenting him, I asked him two questions to give him a chance to clarify his position. But he hasn't answered. He doesn't have the decency, he's wrong and he knows it.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Brainpolice: It's not a blind assertion, it's a matter of proper concept formation. It's actually an epistemological matter. The NAP, by itself, divorced from a comprehensive definition of aggression and its relationship to other more specific principles such as personal sovereignty (otherwise called self-ownership), is a floating abstraction that can be interpreted in a myriad of ways. Likewise, your specific conception of property rights is begged. You cannot just reduce everything to "The NAP" without specifying all of the things that this really implies.
It's not a blind assertion, it's a matter of proper concept formation. It's actually an epistemological matter.
The NAP, by itself, divorced from a comprehensive definition of aggression and its relationship to other more specific principles such as personal sovereignty (otherwise called self-ownership), is a floating abstraction that can be interpreted in a myriad of ways. Likewise, your specific conception of property rights is begged. You cannot just reduce everything to "The NAP" without specifying all of the things that this really implies.
im at a loss to understand you perspective. What you derisively call 'thin libertarianism' , you say suffers from poor concept formation, and needs to be moderated for utilitarian purposes so that the danger of rigidly adhering to the 'thin' doctrine,.that of freedom, self ownership, and private ownership, axioms 'great crimes' arent caused. e.g. the deaths of trespassers, the death of those guilty of supposed misdeameanors.
I think a society living under 'thin libertarianism' would leave much to be desired, I would exhort those people living in it to voluntarily, 'thicken' their standrards and opt into market produced private law, such that would give leeway to trespassers, and set rules of thumb for conflict resolution. i would do this by appealing to their rational self interest, in a sense it would a be a utilitarian appeal, but thats the wrong word, it would be a purely practicle appeal, one of preferences. It would not have moral force. They would not be morally wrong to avoid the softening, they would only have a different worldview. Thin libertarianism is moral as it stands. It sets the hard rule. you obviously dont like hard rules. if you want to soften them, you have to allow people to opt into the softened system that you offer, and you also have to maintain their freedom to opt out, less you risk moral inconsistency, lest you prejudice your entire project.
as far as our non-aggression axiom being incompletely formed. can you give concepts of archetypal well formed concepts and improper formed concepts. if theres not a rule you can specify for categorisign the one from the other, perhaps increased familiarity will allow the pattern to emerge, and i might have some hope of agreeing with you.
finally, this thread moves so fast that i laid down a challenge, and no-one responded to it. i will try not to get into the habit of repeating everything twice, but i wouldnt want you to not respond to it just because you hadnt seen it. (stating that you feel it is not worth addressing would be all the acknowledgement i need)
is it misrepresenting your argument to say that : >
you assert that when a property owner applies any more aggression than a trespasser has initiated, then the descriptive label 'Initiator of Aggression' cross over from the body of the trespasser to sit comfortably on the forehead of the landlord.
yet
if we consider a pickpocket thief who brushing past a gentleman, with quick fingers takes the wallet, and walks on. The gentleman has a momentary doubt, and patting his pockets determines that he has ben fleeced. his 50$ and picture of his wife and kids is heading up the road with that man who had brushed past him on this otherwise empty street mere moments ago. the gentleman turns t follow the thief, he begins to run, the theif hearing the quickining footsteps breaks into a run. yet the gentleman is more athletic than the thief, he tackles him to the ground. overpowers him. takes his wallet. goes home .
financially the debt is squared away. private property has been restituted. but the pickpocket had used minimal 'force' and the gentleman brutally knocked the thief to the floor bruising him. whilst neither theif nor gentleman have financially more or less than they started with. the one is injured the other not. clearly the gentleman has initiated aggression. he is the Greater Trespasser.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
GilesStratton: nibbler491:You're misrepresenting him again, despite him repeating OVER and OVER that he is not advocating against self-defense. He is arguing against using ASYMMETRICAL force against someone. If you believe your life is being threatened(like it is in your scenario), then you absolutely have the right to protect yourself, even if that means killing that person.
i might be prioving not to have followed the subtlety of brainpolices argument but it seems to me that he would not agree that
if you believe your life is being threatened(like it is in your scenario), then you absolutely have the right to protect yourself, even if that means killing that person
one assumes as a 'thick libertarian' he must also bake into the justification that the belief be a justified true belief (plato!) and that you also have further justified true beliefs that there arent alternative ways to remove the damage or threat of damage to oneself (or ones property) Im afraid he might be in a real gray area though. with the sharp line he has drarawn between the insignificant trespass of propoerty weighed against the heavy sacred property of bodily health and integrity. brain police remains to explain whether a use of physical force against a thiefs body, is justifiable whne the thief is not using violent aggression, but aggression of a more subtle kind. a la the pickpocket.
GilesStratton: nibbler491:You're misrepresenting him again, despite him repeating OVER and OVER that he is not advocating against self-defense. He is arguing against using ASYMMETRICAL force against someone. If you believe your life is being threatened(like it is in your scenario), then you absolutely have the right to protect yourself, even if that means killing that person. I'm not misrepresenting him, I asked him two questions to give him a chance to clarify his position. But he hasn't answered. He doesn't have the decency, he's wrong and he knows it.
Actually your repetition of the same questions over is completely ridiculous because I've spent this entire thread already clarifying the matter, and you're asking questions that assume a premise I've already clarified. I've already more than sufficiently answered you, I'm not opposing genuine cases of self-defense, I'm distinguishg self-defense from ex-post facto violence and pre-emptive violence. My views on this are similar to this: http://royhalliday.home.mindspring.com/a2.htm#a2
Brainpolice: GilesStratton: nibbler491:You're misrepresenting him again, despite him repeating OVER and OVER that he is not advocating against self-defense. He is arguing against using ASYMMETRICAL force against someone. If you believe your life is being threatened(like it is in your scenario), then you absolutely have the right to protect yourself, even if that means killing that person. I'm not misrepresenting him, I asked him two questions to give him a chance to clarify his position. But he hasn't answered. He doesn't have the decency, he's wrong and he knows it. Actually your repetition of the same questions over is completely ridiculous because I've spent this entire thread already clarifying the matter, and you're asking questions that assume a premise I've already clarified. I've already more than sufficiently answered you, I'm not opposing genuine cases of self-defense, I'm distinguishg self-defense from ex-post facto violence and pre-emptive violence. My views on this are similar to this: http://royhalliday.home.mindspring.com/a2.htm#a2
Answer the questions.
GilesStratton: Brainpolice: GilesStratton: nibbler491:You're misrepresenting him again, despite him repeating OVER and OVER that he is not advocating against self-defense. He is arguing against using ASYMMETRICAL force against someone. If you believe your life is being threatened(like it is in your scenario), then you absolutely have the right to protect yourself, even if that means killing that person. I'm not misrepresenting him, I asked him two questions to give him a chance to clarify his position. But he hasn't answered. He doesn't have the decency, he's wrong and he knows it. Actually your repetition of the same questions over is completely ridiculous because I've spent this entire thread already clarifying the matter, and you're asking questions that assume a premise I've already clarified. I've already more than sufficiently answered you, I'm not opposing genuine cases of self-defense, I'm distinguishg self-defense from ex-post facto violence and pre-emptive violence. My views on this are similar to this: http://royhalliday.home.mindspring.com/a2.htm#a2 Answer the questions.
Your concern has already been addressed pages back. Your questions are misleading because they assume I'm opposing self-defense when I'm not. The scenarios you bring up aren't the kind of scenarios I'm talking about.
Brainpolice:Actually your repetition of the same questions over is completely ridiculous because I've spent this entire thread already clarifying the matter, and you're asking questions that assume a premise I've already clarified. I've already more than sufficiently answered you, I'm not opposing genuine cases of self-defense, I'm distinguishg self-defense from ex-post facto violence and pre-emptive violence. My views on this are similar to this: http://royhalliday.home.mindspring.com/a2.htm#a2
with the nap being timeless, ex pos facto, wouldnt seem to go into it. and punishment seems tangential as no one proposing 'thin libertarianism' as you called it has described their self defence acts as due punishment. perhaps we have different emphasis on the meaning of punishment, typically punishment is decided on and delivered against an aggressor at a state of time distinctly after any acts of defense, or restitution have taken place, and would constitute any 'extra' costs that the criminal may bear within the moral or legal system that uses such concepts.
but the issue has never been what should the landowner be able to do the the trespasser, a solid week after the trespasser had stopped trespassing and where the trespasser and landowner meet both as invited guests of another in the territory of a 3rd party.
im making the point that being an active 'trespasser' in the state of trespassing is different than being an agent who is previously committed an act of trespass (that may at this point have been compensated for, or not, as the case may be)
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."
I haven't read the last few posts, but:
If trespass is a crime, like assault, then it should be dealt with in the way that crimes like assault are dealt with. Trespass on its own, is (in my opinion) not as bad as assault, and is not even as bad as theft; theft is the illegitimate appropriation of property while trespass is merely the effective renting of property without consent or payment. Unless we are to decide that victims of thieves have complete control over the course of punishment or restitution handed to the thieves who wronged them, then we cannot argue that the victims of trespass have that right. Surely the punishment handed to a trespasser would be wrung out between the two individuals' justice agencies, or at a mutually accepted court - the victim does not have the right to summarily punish the transgressor.
I believe the analogy is sound, but I am open to criticism.
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.
Juan:Answer the questions. The king has spoken. King of the trolls, that is.
well, i dont know how helpful that is juan, but nevermind/
perhaps we can try to get some closure, as the saying goes.
giles questions where posted many pages back. I will try to answer them as i see fit. and if brain police or anyone else wants to they can feel free. I think the questions can be answered with yes, no, or 'that depends on'.
so here goes.
If I live in downtown Freetown and a number of houses have been broken into recently in my area, and the people inside murdered, do I have the right to shoot somebody if they break into my house?
as i am playing the part of thin libertarian, in a raw state of mutal libertarian anarchy where all that the agents are bound to respect is NAP and private property rights then. YES, you can fire your bullets in your home. dont let stray rounds impact on others buildings.
otherwise:
in a well functioning town where the agents concerned have (by paying their dues to various private defence agencies and insurance companies) commited themselves to following various standards of self-restraint, tamed their natural rights to defense in exchange for like consideration.
so this is an open question under this branch, maybe yes, maybe, no, depending on the codes and the agents relationships to those codes.
Secondly, am I right in thinking that if somebody is hanging on a flagpole outside my window, do they have the right to break my window to save themselves? Am I right in thinking that your position is that they do since the right to life and liberty comes above that of property?
whilst in raw anarchy, No, they have not the right to break the window. but in a similar market law scenario as described above the landowner might have previously obliged himself to show some degree of tolerance.
Brainpolice:Your concern has already been addressed pages back. Your questions are misleading because they assume I'm opposing self-defense when I'm not. The scenarios you bring up aren't the kind of scenarios I'm talking about.
Well answer them.
I'll ask again: if I live in downtown Freetown and all the houses nearby have been broken into recently, I hear somebody breaking into mine, do I have the right to shoot? Yes, or no?
And as for the flagpole situation, if I am hanging on a flag pole and there if a house nearby do I have the right to break the window to climb through and save myself? Yes or no?
If you would like to point out how they are misleading, go ahead.
I never did hear of any comedians from Argentina, until now of course.
nirgrahamUK: GilesStratton: Secondly, am I right in thinking that if somebody is hanging on a flagpole outside my window, do they have the right to break my window to save themselves? Am I right in thinking that your position is that they do since the right to life and liberty comes above that of property? whilst in raw anarchy, No, they have not the right to break the window. but in a similar market law scenario as described above the landowner might have previously obliged himself to show some degree of tolerance.
GilesStratton: Secondly, am I right in thinking that if somebody is hanging on a flagpole outside my window, do they have the right to break my window to save themselves? Am I right in thinking that your position is that they do since the right to life and liberty comes above that of property?
Juan: nirgrahamUK: GilesStratton: Secondly, am I right in thinking that if somebody is hanging on a flagpole outside my window, do they have the right to break my window to save themselves? Am I right in thinking that your position is that they do since the right to life and liberty comes above that of property? whilst in raw anarchy, No, they have not the right to break the window. but in a similar market law scenario as described above the landowner might have previously obliged himself to show some degree of tolerance. The point is that, although the trespassers DON'T have the right to trespass (duh), you DON'T have the right to kill them either. It's called PROPORTIONALITY and it has nothing to do with previous contracts or PDAs.
so it comes down to a matter of faith juan?
i believe that if one sets oneself the task of deducing a rational moral system, that you will get out that NAP and private property are necessary and sufficient.
you have a different understanding. that somehow a further law of proportionality would be concluded.
i think i could try to sketch out how my two axioms are derived from such an endeavour.
if you cant do the same for your 3 axioms. I am not likely to be persuaded.
if you say that the 3rd axiom is simply intuited self evident you have a faith, and we should end further talk
Thedesolateone: I haven't read the last few posts, but: If trespass is a crime, like assault, then it should be dealt with in the way that crimes like assault are dealt with. Trespass on its own, is (in my opinion) not as bad as assault, and is not even as bad as theft; theft is the illegitimate appropriation of property while trespass is merely the effective renting of property without consent or payment. Unless we are to decide that victims of thieves have complete control over the course of punishment or restitution handed to the thieves who wronged them, then we cannot argue that the victims of trespass have that right. Surely the punishment handed to a trespasser would be wrung out between the two individuals' justice agencies, or at a mutually accepted court - the victim does not have the right to summarily punish the transgressor. I believe the analogy is sound, but I am open to criticism.
my opinion is that a universal ethics does not require theories of punishment or restitution. it merely requires hard objective rules which can be applied universally, that dont lead to contradiction, and concern agents. that say this is wrong, and this is not wrong. what is permissable and what is not,the issue of punishment or restitution can be seperated from the act of self defence, by time.
by definition self-defence is happening concurrently with the crime. its not about victim summarily punishing transgressors, but dealing with the live transgression in the moment of the transgression.