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:at the point in time we are considering, after the slap, there is no issue of B acting in self-defence against A. There is nothing to defend. A has finished administering the slap, its done, sunk cost. move along nothing to see here.
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."
lol, here we go with appeals to authority....
Juan:You're kind of out of your depth.
pot, kettle, black.
Juan:Or were you referring to Kinsella and so called estoppel ? If that's the case I'd love to hear your take on it. It seems that a lawyer (Kinsella) and somebody who sounds like a budding lawyer use the same concept to justify A and not-A. It's quite interesting...
perhaps you didnt notice but Kinsella's document that you jumped on was concerned with a theory of punishment and not self-defence. perhaps you can tell me which of the two we have been focused on throughout?
Juan:Anyway, you have miserably failed to show how the application of the NAP leads to regard cold blood murder as a non-aggressive behaviour. The only thing you did is use circular arguments which hint that you are just a legal positivist playing word games.
juan, to put it to you as to a baby, without all the qualification and enlightened talk which i have expanded on profusely (to which you have not directed any pinpoint criticism). The NAP has been miss abbreviated. it should be NIAP. because aggression has two meanings apply force, and attack. note attack is being the first to apply force in a situation. So please be accurate and bitch about how in your opinion Non-Initation-(of)Aggression-Principle is inconsistant with killing during defence.
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:: libertarianism is built upon inalienable rights to life, liberty and property
im afraid most libertarians dont agree that every human being has a 'right to life' . that would entail a right to medical care, food, etc. etc.
so if libertarianism wants to make statements free of contradiction, its better to say
'libertarianism is built upon liberty and property'
but maybe i just appreciate truth more than you do?
I'm still undecided as to the ethical aspect of proportionality. I will however remark that if you're going to be blowing the brains of children out for stepping on your lawn you're going to have a very difficult time trying to find insurance.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
GilesStratton: will however remark that if you're going to be blowing the brains of children out for stepping on your lawn you're going to have a very difficult time trying to find insurance.
i completely agree.
nirgrahamUK: Juan: You're kind of out of your depth. pot, kettle, black.
Juan: You're kind of out of your depth.
juan, to put it to you as to a baby, without all the qualification and enlightened talk which i have expanded on profusely (to which you have not directed any pinpoint criticism).
The NAP has been miss abbreviated. it should be NIAP. because aggression has two meanings apply force, and attack.
So please be accurate and bitch about how in your opinion Non-Initation-(of)Aggression-Principle is inconsistant with killing during defence.
GilesStratton:I will however remark that if you're going to be blowing the brains of children out for stepping on your lawn you're going to have a very difficult time trying to find insurance.
there is nothing incongrous about being a freeman in a free society whether your insurance costs, be high, or low.
well if you want to judge morality based on insurance costs, we can call that Juan's thing. we'll make you a wikipage in political philosophies, we call it insurancism. the cheaper it is the righter you are !
juan, what are you even critiquing anymore?
i havent been refused service by any PDA