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)?
Juan: 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. Then stop picking stupid fights with me ? Why would you argue for something you don't believe in ? Except to troll, that is.
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.
the argument is not about our preferences for how people should behave, and how they should treat each other. its about what is wright and what is wrong, black and what, unviersal law. ethics.
the argument you want to have about 'well what statutues of proportion should free market lawmakers propose' is a fine one worth having, but you have to admit that its not already implicit in the liberterian law. It needs to be taken out of the universal and put into the concrete societies and cultures who lawmakers try to sell laws to. There is a divide between the natural law, and the man made law that we would do well to institute atop it.
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
there is no such objective proof possible,
in your framework neither aggressors nor defenders can legitimately kill.
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."
its about what is wright and what is wrong, black and what, unviersal law. ethics.
the argument you want to have about 'well what statutues of proportion should free market lawmakers propose' is a fine one worth having, but you have to admit that its not already implicit in the liberterian law.
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.
nirgrahamUK: Juan: 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. Then stop picking stupid fights with me ? Why would you argue for something you don't believe in ? Except to troll, that is. the argument is not about our preferences for how people should behave, and how they should treat each other. its about what is wright and what is wrong, black and what, unviersal law. ethics.
* liberty student agrees
Juan: Too bad that, since there's no way to objectively prove anything,
evidence can be brought to determine on objective reflection what DID happen. in a case where something happened. objective proof is possible. . but do you think you can prove, what would happen if someone had refrained from doing something that they did in fact do?
can there be objective knowledge about whether john met george at the store after breakfast and ate toast.? yes, quite possibly
can you prove what they would have eaten had john slept an hour later the night before? no, impossible
nirgrahamUK: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
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
Beautiful! Stunning! Brilliant!, except the part I bolded: technically, as I understand Juan and BP's view, lethal force is legitimate only when they say it is, and if you use any level of force they disapprove of, they will use force against you (proportionally though, right?). Beyond that, you may as well surrender yourself to the state now, because that's where their train is going.
I dunno who you are nirgrahamUK but I love your brain!
I'm satisfied. There's no one post I would highlight as answer, so I think I'll compile one from a variety of posts (with attribution) and mark that as my preferred answer.
To Liberty Student, nirgrahamUK and GilesStratton, you guys are awesome.
To those that disagree with the absolute approach to the ANA (axiom of non-aggression), I'm sorry. I'm sorry that you feel the need to inject your opinions into what others can and cannot do.
I'll say it one more time so everyone knows my position on it: I reject the idea of requiring the response to an aggression to be proportional to the original aggression.
With that idea out of the way, we are left with the ANA and homesteading. I like it!
As a homework assignment to BP and his ilk, please prepare a list of all possible circumstances in which lethal force is allowed and disallowed. I look forward to your library.
Daniel Waite:Beautiful! Stunning! Brilliant! I dunno who you are nirgrahamUK but I love your brain!
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.
Juan: Daniel Waite:Beautiful! Stunning! Brilliant! I dunno who you are nirgrahamUK but I love your brain! Yeah, nirgrahamUK is brilliant. I think this really highlights how clever he is. 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. Now, if only he managed to learn to start each sentence with a capital letter....
Shame on you, Juan. Surely you're above ad hominem attacks. True, NUK's writing skills aren't be the best, but most of the time I can understand the content of his message. His grammar and punctuation is off, too, but he has put thoughts into words that I have been unable to.
Regarding the quote you provided, I think NUK is illustrating the circular logic you and BP are using to advance your shitty theories.
Remember this?
Juan: GilesStratton:If he would die on the flagpole would he have the right to break the window to get into my house? He doesn't have the right. Whether he breaks the window to save his life or just for fun is irrelevant. Happy now ?
GilesStratton:If he would die on the flagpole would he have the right to break the window to get into my house?
He doesn't have the right... hrm, I wonder why? Oh wait, because that would be an aggression! That's right. Silly me. So let's finish it. He doesn't have the right to break my window. He doesn't have the right to use my balcony door. And he doesn't have the right to hang on my MF flag pole.
Moral of the story? Don't fall from the 25th story of a building unless you own the property you intend to fall on.
Shame on you, Juan. Surely you're above ad hominem attacks.
Last time, Juan, just for you.
Juan:He doesn't have the right... hrm, I wonder why? Oh wait, because that would be an aggression! That's right. Silly me. So let's finish it. He doesn't have the right to break my window. He doesn't have the right to use my balcony door. And he doesn't have the right to hang on my MF flag pole. And I never said otherwise. Now, get this : You don't have the right to kill trespassers, because, you know, it would be aggression too.
One has the right to defend their property from an aggressor. The moment you become an aggressor, you have given up your rights. This is the only fallacy-free theory from which to base liberty on. Aggress not, be not aggressed on.
Juan:Regarding the quote you provided, I think NUK is illustrating the circular logic you and BP are using to advance your shitty theories. No, the quote shows your lack of understanding and your circular logic. But get this : from the fact that X doesn't have the right to trespass it does NOT FOLLOW (non-sequitur) that you have the right to kill X.
See above.
DW:One has the right to defend their property from an aggressor.
The moment you become an aggressor, you have given up your rights.
liberty student: 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?
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?
When there is a threat to life or in conditions of escalation in the process of defending property. Otherwise, it's arbitrary force. Defense is always proportional to the offense, unless there are conditions of escalation and a threat to life. Repossession does not require arbitrary force in the process of repossesion. Normally, any overt kind of violence isn't even required in the process of repossession. It only becomes necessary in escalated conditions.
The right of repossession and restitution should not be conflated with an alleged right to arbitrary use force against someone. The purpose of repossession is to retrieve stolen property back to a victim, not to physically harm the offender. The purpose of restitution is to compensate a victim for losses, not to physically harm the offender. Physical harm is incidental to the nature of the crime and not absolutely necessary in all situations.
Common self-interest makes violence mostly unecessary in the process of repossession and restitution. It is doubtful that most thieves would become too violent or erratic when they encounter an attempt at repossession, especially if they're clearly outnumbered and their crime is known. Violence largely only becomes necessary for the criminally insane and in rare situations.
Daniel Waite:To those that disagree with the absolute approach to the ANA (axiom of non-aggression), I'm sorry. I'm sorry that you feel the need to inject your opinions into what others can and cannot do.
I have said this before, and I will say it again: the non-aggression principle is not an axiom. No axiomatic approach, whether Rothbard's "trilemma", Hoppe's version of argumentation ethics, Kinsella's estoppel, or Molyneux's "universally preferable behavior", successfully demonstrates that self-ownership is a self-evidency. What's more, they can't. Liberty can't be seperated from the rest of ethics at a whim.
Daniel Waite:I'll say it one more time so everyone knows my position on it: I reject the idea of requiring the response to an aggression to be proportional to the original aggression.
Which is ridiculous. It only follows from a flawed premise.
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.