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: 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.
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."
LS: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?
you just think violating rights does not prejudice rights.
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:Are you serious...or just trolling ?
I'm serious. Now pay attention.
Juan:So, you will come up with some extremely unlikely scenario which might let you conflate property with life ?
Stealing my crop from my garden is unlikely? My time spent planting and maintaining my garden, which is used to feed my family and I, and someone steals from it and you call that unlikely?
Juan:Why not better discuss the killing of children and customers in cold blood which is, according to Mr. Waite, justified by libertarian theory ?
Because you are avoiding answering what is a very real question. Why is someone stealing my food or shelter (property) not compromising my life, and thus protection of said property constitute self-defense? Can you survive without shelter, food and clothes?
You can't honestly answer the example, because it exposes you for the charlatan of ideas that you are.
To fan the flames: Law and Ethics--A Great Divorce?
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
Juan: I guess you're the kind of person who would hang children for stealing an apple ?
what did i say about market law, vs, the world without market produced law?
wombatron: To fan the flames: Law and Ethics--A Great Divorce?
yes its true some people use the words morality, and ethics in the sense of positive guides to behaviour, act like this. in this situation this course of action is optimal morally, or ethically.
others, myself included, by morality mean a system of rules by which actions can be classified to wrong/not allowed, not-wrong/allowed *where the rules are universalisable for all rational agents (moral candidates)
for us, the open question of how a situation should be dealt with (in the positive sense), is best left for the individual, and we would expect that in 'good' societies, these individuals choices will be informed by the codes and laws thay they voluntarily bind themselves to.
what do you think libertystudent?
nirgrahamUK:what do you think libertystudent?
That's not only rational, but I believe it is also morally defensible.
I'm for non-violence, as much as possible. I would never shoot a child (or anyone) maybe even if it was fatal to me to not do so. But that doesn't change the reality, that our property is an extension of ourselves. If we own our bodies, we own our food. If we own our bodies, we own our shelter. When something challenges our ownership with aggression, we are permitted to respond in defense. we might respond with deadly force. If someone is going to assault someone I am defending (like a family member) I might use too much force and kill them. An arbitrary legal system that makes defense a crime or not only based on motive, is not a legal system I would likely participate in.
In a libertarian world, people will not wander onto property they do not own without permission. Fences make for good neighbors.
nirgrahamUK:what did i say about market law, vs, the world without market produced law ?
no, in all the cases we have discussed not one have them has been on any other issue than the use of force in self -defence, this is what you have sought to limit. its no good saying that they arent self-defense. when they are clearly defense of property.
where have i suggested killing people out side of self-defense? nowhere.
in a situation where a landlord has not voluntarily given up his right to apply whatever level of force he sees fit in self-defencem, he is not morally wrong to kill a child that is trespassing. although it is an ugly act i would not support. if i oppossed it by an embargo on my interactions with such a landlord and his supporters then this would be my free choice ,conforming to my tastes, and would not be done on the basis of breach of libertarian law.
in a situation where a landlord has not voluntarily given up his right to apply whatever level of force he sees fit in self-defencem, he is not morally wrong to kill a child that is trespassing.
there is no such objective proof possible, even if the child walks to you holding a knife. even if the child picks up a gun. even if the chgildp icks up a gun, fires it, but doesnt hit you. you would neet to prove the counterfactual. that if you had not killed him, he would have killed you. impossible as you dont know what would have happened if you hadnt killed him. and if not him. not anyone. in your framework neither aggressors nor defenders can legitimately kill. so inpractice it is the agressors that will
LS:I'm for non-violence, as much as possible. I would never shoot a child (or anyone) maybe even if it was fatal to me to not do so.
juan, i challenge you that your position is as one who has in mind a form of market produced law, and wishes to say that that is libertarian law. in fact this can not be. the whole reason why we need the free market to produce law is to 'solve' these troublesome dilemas.