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)?
nirgrahamUK:so it comes down to a matter of faith juan?
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."
Juan: nirgrahamUK:so it comes down to a matter of faith juan? No, it comes to down to you not understanding that proportionality is part of the NAP.
well thanks a bunch for teaching me that proportionality is part of the NAP.
although you didnt teach it to me.
you just offered it to me as a possiblity
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
Juan: 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.
If he would die on the flagpole would he have the right to break the window to get into my house?
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
GilesStratton: Juan: 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. If he would die on the flagpole would he have the right to break the window to get into my house?
you wrote that although he does not have the right to break the window to save his life from falling, yet ge does have the right to break the window tp save his life from falling so long as he acknowledges he doesnt have such a right, and pays suitable resititution. and is not killed.
anotherway of saying this is that so long as he provides restitution he has the right to break into windows to save his life.
despite him not having such a right.
ok. my head hurts. juan. you hurt me
nirgrahamUK: you wrote that although he does not have the right to break the window to save his life from falling, yet ge does have the right to break the window tp save his life from falling so long as he acknowledges he doesnt have such a right, and pays suitable resititution. and is not killed.
why dont you try to state it, instead of merely implying that you could state it, 'if you wanted to, which you dont'
(trollish a little?)
GilesStratton:If he would die on the flagpole would he have the right to break the window to get into my house?
Juan: He doesn't have the right. Whether he breaks the window to save his life or just for fun is irrelevant. Happy now ?
I'm not happy. Why did you stop being a disruptive troll? I hope BP doesn't adopt your stance of answering questions, instead of insisting he has already answered them (when the record clearly shows he did not).
I want my old King Juan, Master Troller back! WAH!
* liberty student cries!
nirgrahamUK:why dont you try to state it, instead of merely implying that you could state it, 'if you wanted to, which you dont'
you wrote that although he does not have the right to break the window to save his life from falling, yet he does have the right to break the window
by theory of estoppel, if the agents admits that they did things that they had no right to do, on what grounds can they insist the landlord refrain from doing what he has 'no right to do' kill.
doesnt estoppel mess up the admitted trespasser from being able to prohibit the landlord taking violent recourse to the occurring trespass?
another way of saying this is that the trespasser admits having flouted non-aggression axiom, and private property axiom, and if ther was a propotionality axiom he would have flouted that too since his trespass exceed the non crimes that werent prioir done to him by infinite magnitude.
hence by estoppel he has no recourse to criticise when others do the same, and reflect their attention to him
nirgrahamUK: by theory of estoppel, if the agents admits that they did things that they had no right to do, on what grounds can they insist the landlord refrain from doing what he has 'no right to do' kill.
Juan: Nobody has a right to kill, except in self-defense -- full stop.
i wasnt talking about killing outside of self-defense was i?
Juan:Nobody has a right to kill, except in self-defense -- full stop.
The question remains, when does defense of property become defense of life? If you steal from my garden that I use to feed my family, isn't that in effect, trying to compromise my ability to live?