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)?
liberty student: Brainpolice:As usual, it appears that you simply don't understand my position, and have erected a misrepresentation or decoy. You really need to stop trolling and misrepresenting me. As usual, 3 direct arguments were made, and you managed to evade all 3 of them.
Brainpolice:As usual, it appears that you simply don't understand my position, and have erected a misrepresentation or decoy. You really need to stop trolling and misrepresenting me.
As usual, 3 direct arguments were made, and you managed to evade all 3 of them.
Give up, I've asked countless times and he's not answered my questions.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
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?
In that case, why not just kill the person who steals a 5c bubblegum from your store then? Aren't they also "compromising" your ability to live by reducing your income?
Seems like the black and white fallacies again, where something either is or it isn't. That's not how the world really works. Things are proportional and fuzzy, not absolute. Someone partially "compromising" your ability to live doesn't give you the right to completely compromise their ability to live.
Ultima:In that case, why not just kill the person who steals a 5c bubblegum from your store then? Aren't they also "compromising" your ability to live by reducing your income?
more details about the shop. inventories have run low and there is only one product containing sugar remaining. a piece of bubblgegum whose market price in nearby stores is 5c. the shopowner has just realised he's moments away from going into diabetic shock and heads towards the shelf where he knows the last piece of bubble gum to be. he spots a thief making for the bubblegum.
posing a question the other way, most of us could 'survive' the loss of a finger. does this limit the degree of violence we might use to protect ourselves from a notorious finger slicer?
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
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."
Daniel Waite:Bob is a shop owner, open for business. You come into Bob's shop, you pick up items, place them on the counter and wait to hear what your total is. Bob decides your total amounts to a bullet between the eyes. Why? Bob arbitrarily decided to invoke the right to defend his property against trespass. Is Bob a murderer? Not in my view, but I doubt he'll do well commercially. (Update: I should ask, "Is Bob within his right to kill the trespasser?", to which I would answer yes. He's a murderer, but the murder was justified as he was defending his property rights. That said, I still wouldn't do business with him.)
"Is Bob within his right to kill the trespasser?", to which I would answer yes.
nirgrahamUK: Ultima:In that case, why not just kill the person who steals a 5c bubblegum from your store then? Aren't they also "compromising" your ability to live by reducing your income? more details about the shop. inventories have run low and there is only one product containing sugar remaining. a piece of bubblgegum whose market price in nearby stores is 5c. the shopowner has just realised he's moments away from going into diabetic shock and heads towards the shelf where he knows the last piece of bubble gum to be. he spots a thief making for the bubblegum. posing a question the other way, most of us could 'survive' the loss of a finger. does this limit the degree of violence we might use to protect ourselves from a notorious finger slicer?
Yes but what if it's not a life threatening case? Should the store owner shoot the 5 cent thief dead on the spot if all he stands to lose is 5 cents? I think the two sides are talking past each other in these recurring hypotheticals. I will say that yes, you should kill a trespasser, thief, murderer etc if they are threatening your life.
Should a person in a free society not be punished for immediately killing a 5 cent bubble gum thief on the spot?
If there is absolutely NO proportionality, as some people have said, then once you have violated ANYONE's property in ANY way, then ANYONE can legitimately murder you, rape you, make you a slave for life (if we accept that third parties can defend others' property).
majevska:If there is absolutely NO proportionality, as some people have said, then once you have violated ANYONE's property in ANY way, then ANYONE can legitimately murder you, rape you, make you a slave for life (if we accept that third parties can defend others' property).
Juan:I fail to see the point of debating sophists who only show they deranged view of the world and lack of moral sense.
And yet you are obsessed with it. Lack the ability to withdraw from engaging it.
How can you have proportionality, and honestly and sincerely believe in a subjective price system? The sticker on the gum might say 5 cents, but when it could save the life of a diabetic, one could argue it's value is equal to one human life. In a market economy, even a human life has a price.
liberty student: majevska:If there is absolutely NO proportionality, as some people have said, then once you have violated ANYONE's property in ANY way, then ANYONE can legitimately murder you, rape you, make you a slave for life (if we accept that third parties can defend others' property). How can you have proportionality, and honestly and sincerely believe in a subjective price system? The sticker on the gum might say 5 cents, but when it could save the life of a diabetic, one could argue it's value is equal to one human life. In a market economy, even a human life has a price.
Whew! Thank you for responding to that.
And on that note, let's go another round...
Say the shop owner in question routinely asks his customer why they are purchasing from him. The customer is question says, "I'm going to die in the next five minutes if I don't eat this product.". The shop keeper raises his brow and says, "One-thousand dollars.".
"Outrage! The sticker price says $5! This is madness!"
"Hey man, you want it, buy it, if not, don't."
The would-be customer drops to the floor and dies short of his projected five minutes due to an anger-induced stroke.
Did the shop owner cause the death of the would-be customer? Is he obligated to sell his good for the price advertised? Is he obligated to lower his price until the would-be customer can afford it, including for free?
DW:Did the shop owner cause the death of the would-be customer? Is he obligated to sell his good for the price advertised? Is he obligated to lower his price until the would-be customer can afford it, including for free?
Juan: Are you obligated to keep on posting nonsense ?
You should be thankful he does.
wombatron: To fan the flames: Law and Ethics--A Great Divorce?
To fan the flames: Law and Ethics--A Great Divorce?
I thought this was a great article, and particularly timely to boot.
Juan: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. What cases are you, exactly, talking about ? Surely you don't mean the cases brought up by Daniel Waite ? 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. Oh my. Except in the case in which the child is trying to kill the landlord, the landlord has NO right to kill the child. And in reality whether he's the landlord or not is WHOLLY IRRELEVANT. The point is whether a person's life is being objectively threatened or not. If your life is being threatened then you can use as much force as needed to stop the threat. If you're going to shoot a child who steps in your lawn, you better be able to OBJECTIVELY PROVE that your killing was needed to prevent the child from killing you.
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.
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.
Wow, just wow. These people are openly endorsing the logical implications of this ridiculous view - which is defending the cold blood murder of children for stepping on someone's lawn. If none of the observers can see what's wrong with that, I don't know what else to say but that you're merely looking for an excuse for psychopathy and have latched onto libertarianism as a method for doing so. All reason has essentially been abandoned at such a point.
Ultima: 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? In that case, why not just kill the person who steals a 5c bubblegum from your store then? Aren't they also "compromising" your ability to live by reducing your income? Seems like the black and white fallacies again, where something either is or it isn't. That's not how the world really works. Things are proportional and fuzzy, not absolute. Someone partially "compromising" your ability to live doesn't give you the right to completely compromise their ability to live.
Thankyou, and the bubble gum example is straight from Rothbard.