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)?
Brainpolice: 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.
Or not, whether or not they're correct or not, you're just being silly now.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Juan: 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). Exactly. And that would be a reductio-ad-absurdum of the sophists' position. The irony is, nirgrahamUK pretended that believing in proportionality is an article of faith, whereas denying proportionality means you don't believe in logic. Since nirgrahamUK disregards logic, he's ony left with faith. He has faith that he's justified in killing any trespasser if he feels like it.
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).
This has been conveniently avoided, despite being pointed out endlessly. All that these people have are misleading appeals to subjectivity, which seems to be based on a misunderstanding of the subjective theory of value that is superimposed onto moral questions.
GilesStratton: Brainpolice: 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. Or not, whether or not they're correct or not, you're just being silly now.
No, I am not being silly. The logical implication of this view is the legitimization of every kind of psychopathy under the sun so long as the owner is the psychopath.
Brainpolice:This has been conveniently avoided,
Like other questions, no?
GilesStratton: Brainpolice:This has been conveniently avoided, Like other questions, no?
No, the questions you asked are based on misnomers that were clarified long before you even asked the questions.
Brainpolice: GilesStratton: Brainpolice:This has been conveniently avoided, Like other questions, no? No, the questions you asked are based on misnomers that were clarified long before you even asked the questions.
Then answer them again.
GilesStratton: Brainpolice: GilesStratton: Brainpolice:This has been conveniently avoided, Like other questions, no? No, the questions you asked are based on misnomers that were clarified long before you even asked the questions. Then answer them again.
Give me a break. This entire thread is full of clarifications about this.
Brainpolice: GilesStratton: Brainpolice: GilesStratton: Brainpolice:This has been conveniently avoided, Like other questions, no? No, the questions you asked are based on misnomers that were clarified long before you even asked the questions. Then answer them again. Give me a break. This entire thread is full of clarifications about this.
Not in regards to the specific questions I asked, stop being evasive and answer them.
GilesStratton:stop being evasive and answer them.
He cannot stop being evasive. It is why he will not formally debate you but continues to utilize his monopoly soapbox on YouTube where he can control the debate.
It's all good. I'm pleased that more people on the forums than you and I have started to realize that brainpolice lacks credibility and won't debate honestly and sincerely. If you give people enough rope, they will hang themselves.
liberty student: GilesStratton:stop being evasive and answer them. He cannot stop being evasive. It is why he will not formally debate you but continues to utilize his monopoly soapbox on YouTube where he can control the debate. It's all good. I'm pleased that more people on the forums than you and I have started to realize that brainpolice lacks credibility and won't debate honestly and sincerely. If you give people enough rope, they will hang themselves.
Reminds me of a telescreen.
LS:It's all good. I'm pleased that more people on the forums than you and I have started to realize that brainpolice lacks credibility and won't debate honestly and sincerely. If you give people enough rope, they will hang themselves.
MR: Secondly, we may ask: must we go along with those libertarians who claim that a storekeeper has the right to kill a lad as punishment for snatching a piece of his bubble gum? What we might call the “maximalist” position goes as follows: by stealing the bubble gum, the urchin puts himself outside the law. He demonstrates by his action that he does not hold or respect the correct theory of property rights. Therefore, he loses all of his rights, and the storekeeper is within his rights to kill the lad in retaliation.[4] I propose that this position suffers from a grotesque lack of proportion. By concentrating on the storekeeper’s right to his bubble gum, it totally ignores another highly precious property-right: every man’s—including the urchin’s—right of self-ownership. On what basis must we hold that a minuscule invasion of another’s property lays one forfeit to the total loss of one’s own? I propose another fundamental rule regarding crime: the criminal, or invader, loses his own right to the extent that he has deprived another man of his. If a man deprives another man of some of his self-ownership or its extension in physical property, to that extent does he lose his own rights.[5] From this principle immediately derives the proportionality theory of punishment-best summed up in the old adage: “let the punishment fit the crime.”
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."
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.
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.
So if Bob accidentally drops a pencil in a coffee shop and it falls onto Jim's open book, leaving tiny mark on one of the pages, Jim is allowed to shoot Bob in the head immediately and Jim will not be put on trial for murder in a libertarian society?
majevska:So if Bob accidentally drops a pencil in a coffee shop and it falls onto Jim's open book, leaving tiny mark on one of the pages, Jim is allowed to shoot Bob in the head immediately and Jim will not be put on trial for murder in a libertarian society?
No.
You're a smart dude, so if you don't get my position, then maybe I haven't explained it well.
Juan:I'm afraid I'm not sure what your position on this issue is.
For someone who isn't sure what my position is, that has't prevented you from running your mouth now has it?
You're another poster with little credibility. More bark than bite or brains.
Juan:So, do you agree with BP and incidentally Rothbard (and generally with sensible people) ?
BP is too evasive and dishonest for anyone to know exactly what he stands for. The "thick/thin" bit should be immortalized as a forum meme. It's a tremendous example of doublethink.
Juan:Or your obsession with fighting BP drives you to ally with any anybody who disagrees with BP, even when that means supporting positions you don't really support ?
Well that is just stupid to say. Which I suppose I should expect from you. I have challenged Stranger, Jon and Giles all recently, people you would likely call "my allies".
I got quite a laugh out of your shock that I am for non-violence as a preference, and yet took a position of principle supporting the defense of property as an extension of one's self ownership.
You really haven't been interesting to argue with for months. You're a parody of yourself. The "joke is on you", pun intended. lol
liberty student: majevska:So if Bob accidentally drops a pencil in a coffee shop and it falls onto Jim's open book, leaving tiny mark on one of the pages, Jim is allowed to shoot Bob in the head immediately and Jim will not be put on trial for murder in a libertarian society? No.
Wait, maybe I am missing something then.
No? Why not? The logic appears the same to me -- violation of property. Accidental or otherwise... Hmm...