Maxliberty:You are always assuming the thief will be caught and can be made to pay restitution. The shopkeeper has no idea if that will be the case. The shopkeeper has the choice of be robbed or use violence to stop the robber.
Here is the problem with your argument, you are assuming that shooting people is the only act that will stop the thief....
I wrote earlier that if the thief were injured in abduction by the shopkeeper, that is the thief's own damn fault, if he died, in his attempt to flee (not being shot, lets say hit by a car) that is his own damn fault...
I would even extend the leeway for the shopkeeper to pull a gun and threaten the thief, but not shoot him, or using rock salt shotgun slugs or rubber bullets to stop the thief
But for a $ .50 piece of gum, the argument that the shopkeeper is justified in taking life is a little more than weak...
If I bump shoulders with you are you justified in shanking my kidneys?
It sounds like the ocean, smells like fresh mountain air, and tastes like the union of peanut butter and chocolate. ~Liberty Student
Stephen Forde: Harry Felker:The libertarian revolution occurs and government is abolished? Correct. Harry Felker:If the state is abolished, the drug dealer has no one to sue, the property owner does not have any control over anything but the trespass, which he called the police to deal with, everything else is the responsibility of the state, which as it no longer exists, can not be "sued" But, you see, when someone uses a means to and end, they are responsible for all the outcomes they know will occur as a result for choosing that means, not just the outcomes they desire. In this case the owner is responsible for both the removal of the dealer from his property and the arrest and the full term of the imprisonment.
Harry Felker:The libertarian revolution occurs and government is abolished?
Correct.
Harry Felker:If the state is abolished, the drug dealer has no one to sue, the property owner does not have any control over anything but the trespass, which he called the police to deal with, everything else is the responsibility of the state, which as it no longer exists, can not be "sued"
But, you see, when someone uses a means to and end, they are responsible for all the outcomes they know will occur as a result for choosing that means, not just the outcomes they desire. In this case the owner is responsible for both the removal of the dealer from his property and the arrest and the full term of the imprisonment.
That is saying that if you have a child that grows up to be a serial killer you should be jailed for his crimes too...
The owner is responsible for reporting the trespasser and has the liberty to speak as to why he does not want the dealer there, if it is true or not is up to the police to investigate, with your ideas the property owner, if he does not report the trespasser is also responsible for every overdose that happens to the dealer's customers. You paint a lose lose situation for the property owner, who just owns his property, the people who are responsible the state and the dealer are given a free ride.
Since we are neck deep in this hypothetical, what if the property owner calls the police to remove a trespasser and he happens to be a drug dealer and serves two years for state law violation (which is a non crime), is the property owner still liable for those two years?
Stephen Forde: Harry Felker:The convictions that get him the bulk of 2 years are possession and trafficking of controlled substances, correct? Correct. Harry Felker:Is the sentencing for the trespassing concurrent or consecutive sentencing? Let's say concurrent.
Harry Felker:The convictions that get him the bulk of 2 years are possession and trafficking of controlled substances, correct?
Harry Felker:Is the sentencing for the trespassing concurrent or consecutive sentencing?
Let's say concurrent.
Justice is served to the property owner, the loss of the criminal record on the part of the trespasser is all the restitution he will obtain, since the state no longer exists for him to file legal action against...
Stephen Forde: Harry Felker:This also is, in regard to ex post facto, irrelevant, the change in legality made the state operate illegally before such an action was illegal, it should not be made to bear the responsibility, just as the state had no case against Coca Cola when the federal government passed the drug laws... Natural law is timeless. It always applies, whether it is enforced or not. What legislators think is law is irrelevant to what law actually is. So enforcement of Natural law is not and can never be retroactive. Natural law applies now just as much as it would in a free society, the state notwithstanding.
Harry Felker:This also is, in regard to ex post facto, irrelevant, the change in legality made the state operate illegally before such an action was illegal, it should not be made to bear the responsibility, just as the state had no case against Coca Cola when the federal government passed the drug laws...
Natural law is timeless. It always applies, whether it is enforced or not. What legislators think is law is irrelevant to what law actually is. So enforcement of Natural law is not and can never be retroactive. Natural law applies now just as much as it would in a free society, the state notwithstanding.
That is a fair assessment, but if it is not retroactively enforceable, why is this an issue?
Harry Felker: Here is the problem with your argument, you are assuming that shooting people is the only act that will stop the thief....
Actually what I said was violence not shooting. However, shooting should be a part of that inventory of tools to defend your property. It is good that we agree that violence can be used to defend property.
I suspect you are one of these anti-gun people who have this notion that using a gun is somehow different than say hitting someone in the head with a baseball bat or something.
How are people supposed to know exactly what level of violence is acceptable? Let's say that you say using fists are acceptable to prevent the robbery and the shopkeeper srikes the thief in the face and kills him. Is he guilty of murder? Is it ok to kill someone with your fists but using a gun is murder?
Your argument is just sentimental it has no logical consistency or anyway to determine what the correct course of action is for the shopkeeper.
Stephen Forde: Juan: The police should be sued into oblivion, no doubt about that. As to the owner, if he got the drug dealer convicted on purpose, he's also responsible. Well, it's clearly foreseeable from the perspective of the owner, so it is done on purpose, even if it is not the desired outcome.
Juan: The police should be sued into oblivion, no doubt about that. As to the owner, if he got the drug dealer convicted on purpose, he's also responsible.
Stephen Forde: Juan: Stephen Forde: I think a case can reasonably be made that he implicitly agreed to the punishment. Who did ? The owner ? The dealer. Obviously.
Juan: Stephen Forde: I think a case can reasonably be made that he implicitly agreed to the punishment. Who did ? The owner ?
Stephen Forde: I think a case can reasonably be made that he implicitly agreed to the punishment.
Stephen Forde: Juan: Well, if the drug dealer was jailed for two years because of the owner's actions, the owner couldn't complain if he got the same treatment. Exactly!
Juan: Well, if the drug dealer was jailed for two years because of the owner's actions, the owner couldn't complain if he got the same treatment.
Unless it was in the offing as far as all parties were concerned and can be considered implicitly agreed upon within a contractual framework.
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."
Harry Felker:That is saying that if you have a child that grows up to be a serial killer you should be jailed for his crimes too...
That would depend entirely on whether or not the parent in question intentionally employs a means that foreseeably leads to the child maturing into a serial killer.
Harry Felker:The owner is responsible for reporting the trespasser and has the liberty to speak as to why he does not want the dealer there, if it is true or not is up to the police to investigate,
The police are 'civil' servants. They're not like real servants where you can ask them to do one thing but not another. They'll decide what's appropriate. You might just tell them there's a trespasser. They're not stupid. They'll suspect what he was doing there.They'll still more likely than not search him and charge him with possession. They like to make big arrests and lay serious charges. It makes them look good and advances their careers. The consequences of calling them and reporting the trespasser are foreseeable to any reasonable person.
Harry Felker:with your ideas the property owner, if he does not report the trespasser is also responsible for every overdose that happens to the dealer's customers.
No, that would imply positive obligations. No one has any obligation to divert the course of affairs away from negative outcomes. They only have an obligation to not cause others to lose the physical integrity or interfere with the control of other's legitimate possessions. Besides, if addicts want to risk overdosing, that's their own free choice. The owner would be culpable if he tried to interfere with their property rights to prevent that from happening.
There are some gramatical errors in your next statement so I'm going to interpret it as best and as generously as I can. It is not intentional if I get it wrong.
Harry Felker:You paint a lose lose situation for the property owner, who just owns his property, the people who are responsible (are?) the state and the dealer are (is?) given a free ride.
I suppose I do. Under a Rothbardian framework he is in a lose-lose situation. And so are many people today. What I am also attempting to do is provide a justified way out.
Harry Felker:Since we are neck deep in this hypothetical, what if the property owner calls the police to remove a trespasser and he happens to be a drug dealer and serves two years for state law violation (which is a non crime), is the property owner still liable for those two years?
If the owner didn't know that he was a dealer then it is not foreseeable that the police would lay drug charges. In this case, he cannot be considered culpable.
For answers to all of these types of questions, I strongly recommend Stephan N. Kinsella's and Patrick Tinsley's Causation and Aggression. Here's a small quote from page 6 of the pdf file.
Kinsella and Tinsley: In analyzing action through the lens of the praxeological means-ends structure to determine if it amounts to aggression, we ask if the actor employed means to achieve the end of invading the borders of another's property or body -in other words, we ask if he caused the border invasion. The means emplyed can be inanimate or nonhuman means governed solely by causal laws (a gun), or it can include other humans who are employed as means to achieve the illicit end desired. The latter category includes both innocent humans that one employs to cause a border invasion and culpable humans that one conspires (cooperates) with to achieve the illicit end.
In analyzing action through the lens of the praxeological means-ends structure to determine if it amounts to aggression, we ask if the actor employed means to achieve the end of invading the borders of another's property or body -in other words, we ask if he caused the border invasion. The means emplyed can be inanimate or nonhuman means governed solely by causal laws (a gun), or it can include other humans who are employed as means to achieve the illicit end desired. The latter category includes both innocent humans that one employs to cause a border invasion and culpable humans that one conspires (cooperates) with to achieve the illicit end.
Harry Felker: Stephen Forde: Harry Felker:This also is, in regard to ex post facto, irrelevant, the change in legality made the state operate illegally before such an action was illegal, it should not be made to bear the responsibility, just as the state had no case against Coca Cola when the federal government passed the drug laws... Natural law is timeless. It always applies, whether it is enforced or not. What legislators think is law is irrelevant to what law actually is. So enforcement of Natural law is not and can never be retroactive. Natural law applies now just as much as it would in a free society, the state notwithstanding. That is a fair assessment, but if it is not retroactively enforceable, why is this an issue?
You are thinking of Natural law in the same terms as legislation. Right now state laws apply. After a libertarian revolution, libertarian laws will be enacted. And it would be unjust to apply libertarian law to cases which temporally precede the enactment of those libertarian laws.
I look at it entirely differently. Natural (libertarian) law is not enacted. It is simply there and timeless. If state laws run contrary to it, than they are illicit. It is impossible for Natural law to apply retroactively (to when it was created) because it has always existed.
Harry Felker:This also is, in regard to ex post facto, irrelevant, the change in legality made the state operate illegally before such an action was illegal, it should not be made to bear the responsibility
The state is already operating illegally (according to Natural law) the moment it makes up its own legality with the intent to enforce it. State agents are not exempt from responsibility just because they make up their own set of rules to operate under. We also do not draw the conclusion that the Nazis were not exempt from mass murder because they were operating under Nazi law. If justice is to be considered nonarbitrary, there has to be an ultimate standard against which we can compare everyone's actions.
Maxliberty:I suspect you are one of these anti-gun people who have this notion that using a gun is somehow different than say hitting someone in the head with a baseball bat or something.
You know what happens when you assume....
Maxliberty:How are people supposed to know exactly what level of violence is acceptable? Let's say that you say using fists are acceptable to prevent the robbery and the shopkeeper srikes the thief in the face and kills him. Is he guilty of murder? Is it ok to kill someone with your fists but using a gun is murder?
Incidental death is not murder...
It is not reasonable to assume punching someone once will kill a person, unless of course we are talking about a child or elderly person, which should not need such methods to detain...
Maxliberty:Your argument is just sentimental it has no logical consistency or anyway to determine what the correct course of action is for the shopkeeper.
The shopkeeper can do what ever he wants to protect his property, but unless his life was threatened I do not see the justification of lethal force
Stephen Forde:That would depend entirely on whether or not the parent in question intentionally employs a means that foreseeably leads to the child maturing into a serial killer.
Who determines that?
Stephen Forde:The police are 'civil' servants. They're not like real servants where you can ask them to do one thing but not another. They'll decide what's appropriate. You might just tell them there's a trespasser. They're not stupid. They'll suspect what he was doing there.They'll still more likely than not search him and charge him with possession. They like to make big arrests and lay serious charges. It makes them look good and advances their careers. The consequences of calling them and reporting the trespasser are foreseeable to any reasonable person.
That is the drug dealers bad then, he knows the statist law is prohibative to his activity, he knows that the property owner wants him to leave, he refused, he knows the property owner could call the police, so in effect he did it to himself, because he is not stupid, he knows the possible course of events...
The Dealer has no claim on the property owner by virtue of your drug user overdose comparison...
Stephen Forde: There are some gramatical errors in your next statement so I'm going to interpret it as best and as generously as I can. It is not intentional if I get it wrong. Harry Felker:You paint a lose lose situation for the property owner, who just owns his property, the people who are responsible, the state and the dealer are given a free ride. I suppose I do. Under a Rothbardian framework he is in a lose-lose situation. And so are many people today. What I am also attempting to do is provide a justified way out.
Harry Felker:You paint a lose lose situation for the property owner, who just owns his property, the people who are responsible, the state and the dealer are given a free ride.
I missed the comma between "responsible" and "the"
The justified way out is the dealer knows the state laws prohibit his actions, and should assume the risk there of...
Stephen Forde: For answers to all of these types of questions, I strongly recommend Stephan N. Kinsella's and Patrick Tinsley's Causation and Aggression. Here's a small quote from page 6 of the pdf file. Kinsella and Tinsley: In analyzing action through the lens of the praxeological means-ends structure to determine if it amounts to aggression, we ask if the actor employed means to achieve the end of invading the borders of another's property or body -in other words, we ask if he caused the border invasion. The means emplyed can be inanimate or nonhuman means governed solely by causal laws (a gun), or it can include other humans who are employed as means to achieve the illicit end desired. The latter category includes both innocent humans that one employs to cause a border invasion and culpable humans that one conspires (cooperates) with to achieve the illicit end.
So According to Kinsella and Tinsley, aside from killing the drug dealer as a trespasser there is no way for the property owner can have justice served without the drug dealer's rights violated?
Stephen Forde:It is impossible for Natural law to apply retroactively (to when it was created) because it has always existed.
But is it possible for natural law to review the case after it becomes applicable once again, seeing as illicit state laws supercede it, regardless of our wishes, which really draws the dealer with a claim againstr the state and not the property owner...
Juan:Okay. So, the owner is just as criminal as the police. He's responsible for kidnapping a peaceful person for two years.
That's right. Just as an employer of hitmen is responsible for murder.
Juan:How (on earth) did the dealer agree to be jailed ? Please prove your unfounded assertion ?
A case can be reasonably be made that the dealer understood and implicitly consented to being arrested and jailed as a result of selling drugs on the owner's property and failing to leave after being asked.
Juan:So ? At any rate I 'm not that interested in 'proportionally punishing' the owner, but in preventing the jailing of the dealer. I can't see, at all, what this contrived hypothetical scenario is supposed to illustrate.
It is more likely that you refuse to acknowledge what is being illistrated.
Juan: Unless it was in the offing as far as all parties were concerned and can be considered implicitly agreed upon within a contractual framework. Sorry, I don't understand. Can you rephrase that ?
If it is understood by all parties and implicitly agreed to by all parties, than the owner and the police are off the hook for supraproportional punishment.
Juan:Anyways, contracts don't enter the picture. If we stick to the bubble gum thief example, it's taken for granted that the thief did not sign a contract saying that he agreed to be summarily executed for stealing $1
Only because you don't think that entry onto a property can be considered a signal acknowledging a transfer of property. Really, what would and would not constitute entering into an agreement depends on convention. Signature, handshake, whatever. It depends on what is generally considered and can be interpreted as entry into an agreement. But whatever. Let's say instead of entry, he must give a digital thumbprint on a scanner right below the posted conditions before an automatic door will open granting him entry. Now, did he enter into an agreement?
Juan:In the case of the dealer he never agreed to be jailed either. The owner knowingly caused an amount of damage for which he is responsible - there's no contract in place waiving his responsibility .
Same thing as previous scenario. Digital thumbprint and automatic door. "If you sell illicit drugs on my property, I reserve the right to call the cops and am not responsible for any excessive force they may use." There you go. Does that take care of the "that's not a contract" hang-up?
Only because you don't think that entry onto a property can be considered a signal acknowledging a transfer of property.
"If you sell illicit drugs on my property, I reserve the right to call the cops and am not responsible for any excessive force they may use."
Harry Felker: Stephen Forde:That would depend entirely on whether or not the parent in question intentionally employs a means that foreseeably leads to the child maturing into a serial killer. Who determines that?
The plaintiff, defendent, judge and jury.
Harry Felker: Stephen Forde:The police are 'civil' servants. They're not like real servants where you can ask them to do one thing but not another. They'll decide what's appropriate. You might just tell them there's a trespasser. They're not stupid. They'll suspect what he was doing there.They'll still more likely than not search him and charge him with possession. They like to make big arrests and lay serious charges. It makes them look good and advances their careers. The consequences of calling them and reporting the trespasser are foreseeable to any reasonable person. That is the drug dealers bad then, he knows the statist law is prohibative to his activity, he knows that the property owner wants him to leave, he refused, he knows the property owner could call the police, so in effect he did it to himself, because he is not stupid, he knows the possible course of events...
Well, he didn't do it to himself. The owner and the justice system did it to him. What does knowing the possible course of events have to do with it? I know I will be jailed if I don't pay taxes. Does that mean I jail myself?
Harry Felker:So According to Kinsella and Tinsley, aside from killing the drug dealer as a trespasser there is no way for the property owner can have justice served without the drug dealer's rights violated?
Sorry, I should have been more clear. All of these scenarios are mine. Kinsella and Tinsley explain what conditions are necessary for a crime to take place. They go through what is and isn't a crime and why in a very thorough manner.
Harry Felker: Stephen Forde:It is impossible for Natural law to apply retroactively (to when it was created) because it has always existed. But is it possible for natural law to review the case after it becomes applicable once again, seeing as illicit state laws supercede it, regardless of our wishes, which really draws the dealer with a claim againstr the state and not the property owner...
The dealer can make a claim against the owner as well as specific state agents since he acted in concert with the police to have him arrested and jailed. And it wouldn't be a review, it would be a separate case entirely.
Stephen Forde: Harry Felker: Stephen Forde:The police are 'civil' servants. They're not like real servants where you can ask them to do one thing but not another. They'll decide what's appropriate. You might just tell them there's a trespasser. They're not stupid. They'll suspect what he was doing there.They'll still more likely than not search him and charge him with possession. They like to make big arrests and lay serious charges. It makes them look good and advances their careers. The consequences of calling them and reporting the trespasser are foreseeable to any reasonable person. That is the drug dealers bad then, he knows the statist law is prohibative to his activity, he knows that the property owner wants him to leave, he refused, he knows the property owner could call the police, so in effect he did it to himself, because he is not stupid, he knows the possible course of events... Well, he didn't do it to himself. The owner and the justice system did it to him. What does knowing the possible course of events have to do with it? I know I will be jailed if I don't pay taxes. Does that mean I jail myself?
You set the scenario to a statist world two years after going free...
The Dealer and the justice system did it to him, the owner said "leave", he did nothing but use the justice system to evacuate the trespasser from his property, and as you said they are not servants, but civil servants, the owner could not control them...
As for taxes, who's rights are you violating when you do not pay your taxes?
Harry Felker:Incidental death is not murder...
Then shooting at them is just designed to make them stop. It is incidental that they were killed.
Harry Felker: It is not reasonable to assume punching someone once will kill a person, unless of course we are talking about a child or elderly person, which should not need such methods to detain...
So if we shoot at the legs we are ok? How about a karate chop to the neck? or a baseball bat to the chest? How is the shopkeeper to have some reasonable way of knowing what you the defense czar thinks is appropriate?
Harry Felker: The shopkeeper can do what ever he wants to protect his property, but unless his life was threatened I do not see the justification of lethal force
Ah, so you have adopted the current philosophy of most government's, if the thief is running away with your property or destroying it then you have no reasonable way to stop him since any act of violence strong enough to make them stop will either be potentially lethal or if non-violent insufficient to make him stop.
What you advocate is already being applied by the state and we see what a wonderous effect it has on reducing crime. Leaving the victim defenseless doesn't strike me as a libertarian principle.
Your philosophy give the shopkeeper no idea what he can do without potentially facing prosecution for protecting his property. If he is to rough and causes serious bodily harm or death maybe he wil be facing prison and not the thief and he has no idea where the line is.
Maxliberty:Your philosophy give the shopkeeper no idea what he can do without potentially facing prosecution for protecting his property. If he is to rough and causes serious bodily harm or death maybe he wil be facing prison and not the thief and he has no idea where the line is.
Only if he is an idiot Max....
I do not know where you are from, but down here in Florida, defenseless is not the word I would go with....
You cannot shoot an unarmed thief, but you can beat him to the ground....
I suppose it is the subjectivity of the state....
Harry Felker: You set the scenario to a statist world two years after going free... The Dealer and the justice system did it to him, the owner said "leave", he did nothing but use the justice system to evacuate the trespasser from his property, and as you said they are not servants, but civil servants, the owner could not control them...
He has control over whether or not the police come. The core problem is that his options are limited to supraproportional defense or being victimized. He has control in the situation and he is responsible for any foreseeable outcome he creates.
Harry Felker:That is the drug dealers bad then, he knows the statist law is prohibative to his activity, he knows that the property owner wants him to leave, he refused, he knows the property owner could call the police, so in effect he did it to himself, because he is not stupid, he knows the possible course of events...
Stephen Forde:Well, he didn't do it to himself. The owner and the justice system did it to him. What does knowing the possible course of events have to do with it? I know I will be jailed if I don't pay taxes. Does that mean I jail myself?
Harry Felker:As for taxes, who's rights are you violating when you do not pay your taxes?
The point here is that your argument "that he knew it was coming" is not universalizable. You apply it in some circumstances but not in others. So, there must be some further justufication which applies in some cases, but not in others. And the additional condition, presented in the form of a rhetorical question, "when you violate someone's rights" along with the old one "you know the consequences" is still not enough. You don't agree in the case of the shopkeeper and the bubblegum theif, that the fact that the bubblegum theif is violating rights and knows the consequences is sufficient to establish supraproportional use of forces. So there must still be some further underlying conditions which must be met before something is justified.
What, in your opinion, is necessary for supraproportional force to be justified?
Juan:Okay, I'm done 'abusing' your oh-so-deserving-of-respect person....Go shoot some petty thieves.
And now we are back to square one.
Stephen Forde:He has control over whether or not the police come. The core problem is that his options are limited to supraproportional defense or being victimized. He has control in the situation and he is responsible for any foreseeable outcome he creates.
And why isn't the drug dealer, he knows the only two options the owner has....
Stephen Forde:What, in your opinion, is necessary for supraproportional force to be justified?
It is never justified, but placing the responsibility on the owner is not justified either, as the dealer could have left prior to the probably police involvement...
Dealers understand the risk of their profession, as I did when I was one, it is why we do not get ourselves in positions where the police are called on us, it is why Block labels them Heroes in Defending the Undefendable
Harry Felker:It is never justified, but placing the responsibility on the owner is not justified either, as the dealer could have left prior to the probably police involvement...
And the man could have not stolen the bubblegum. So that's obviously not the issue.
Maxliberty:We agree then that violence can be used to defend property. Please explain why deadly force is not possible in this case
If your computer has a virus, you could pay somene to remove it, or you could take an axe to your computer. Which one will leave you with a computer? See the point? Probably not.
Stephen Forde:And the man could have not stolen the bubblegum. So that's obviously not the issue.
Apples and oranges
Maxliberty:What you advocate is already being applied by the state and we see what a wonderous effect it has on reducing crime. Leaving the victim defenseless doesn't strike me as a libertarian principle.
Harry Felker:Apples and oranges
So what makes case 1 an apple where supraproportional force is not allowed and case 2 an orange where supraproportional force is allowed?
Stephen Forde:So what makes case 1 an apple where supraproportional force is not allowed
Commitment of the force is by the shopkeeper directly
Stephen Forde:case 2 an orange where supraproportional force is allowed?
It is not, it is just not the owners responsibility, it is the states...
If the thief was shot by a cop, the same would apply to the shopkeeper if yelled "stop thief!!!" in a statist world...
Maxliberty:I think your arguement for porportionality can now come into play.
If the DROs/individual agree on what is proportional, they should be held accountable. I think this can be true from the get go, or five days later.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Killing someone for stealing a pack of gum is a mockery of justice. What you p[ropose is the same as Stalin would do. Is that really what you want to advocate?
Claiming something is a mockery of justice, implies you know what justice is. What is it? I don't want to hear your personal viewpoint on it. I want an objective viewpoint which is applicable to all persons at all times. Simple enough. I look forward to hearing your response.
I've been gone for a few days, read over the posts, and to my disappointment, you still have failed to answer what (in an objective sense) is a proportional reaction the shopkeeper could take.
Thanks.
Thanks
Pablo:Claiming something is a mockery of justice, implies you know what justice is.
Pablo:What is it?
Now then, moral and epistemic nihilist--what do you have?
Juan:It's funny how on one hand there's no such thing as proportionality (the confused amoralists claim), because, alllegedly nobody can ever agree on what proportionality means. On the other hand, proportionality is going to actually be determined by agreement. But the people who are going to contractually agree (via PDAs) don't know what proportionality is. It's like blindmen agreeing on what is a color, and what the difference between red and green is. A ridiculous contradiction. But oh well. Never let logic get in the way of a nice floating abstraction such as "EVERYTHING IS CONTRACTS" Pablo, as hashem pointed out, you need to realize that you barely know what you're talking about.
Seconded. How can one have a theory of contractual enforcement without having a theory of property rights enforcement in the first place. It begs the question.
Pablo: I've been gone for a few days, read over the posts, and to my disappointment, you still have failed to answer what (in an objective sense) is a proportional reaction the shopkeeper could take. Thanks.
Grabbing the theif by the wrist, twisting him down to the ground and taking the bubblegum from his possession if he's still in the process of stealing it.
Later on, if the theif has successfully stolen it and is later caught punishment should be equivilent to the piece of gum plus the piece of gum times the inverse of the likelihood he would've gotten caught plus the cost of capture plus interest, imo.
Juan:alllegedly nobody can ever agree on what proportionality means.
This is a strawman. I never stated this and do not agree with it.
Subjectively- I know what is proportional. My proportionality is not necessarily the same as someone else's is. The only way to arrive at an objectively true statement is for me to say, "For me, proportionality is X" . This is indisputable. Furthermore, if Bill were to say, "For me, proportionality is X", and we were both to agree that eithers is a fair assessment, we could arrive at an objective truth. "For myself and Bill, proportionality is X". If John were to disagree with what is proportional, is he 'wrong'? If he is responsible for his life, and his property, how can you place your proportionality onto him against his will? For this reason, it is incredibly dangerous to apply your viewpoint of proportionality to anothers without their agreement. The only way you can do this, is by using coercion.
Juan:It's like blindmen agreeing on what is a color, and what the difference between red and green is.
It is nothing like that. It is like two able and willing persons agreeing on what is proportional. Why must you attempt to distort it with a poor analogy?
Juan:Pablo, as hashem pointed out, you need to realize that you barely know what you're talking about. Thanks My pleasure.
pleasure.
You have a lot to learn. Stop pretending like you understand everything. Perhaps then you will realize that you can not be the czar of the world.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Now then, moral and epistemic nihilist--what do you have?
I am not a nihilist. I believe rights are created by contracts. I believe morals are subjective. They are based on each individuals nature and nurture. I believe there is truth, but it is not found by claiming that something is true, when clearly it is false. (ie, claiming there is an objective proportionality)
Knight_of_BAAWA:Giving that which is deserved
You are passing the definition. What is 'that which is deserved'? Who is to decide 'that which is deserved'?
There will never be one definition which can encompass everyones subjective viewpoint of what is just. The only way to achieve this, is by allowing each individual the ability to agree with what they see as just.
Pablo:I am not a nihilist.
Pablo:I believe rights are created by contracts. I believe morals are subjective. They are based on each individuals nature and nurture. I believe there is truth, but it is not found by claiming that something is true, when clearly it is false. (ie, claiming there is an objective proportionality)
Pablo:You are passing the definition.
If you kill someone for stealing a pack of gum, you have destroyed justice. You have substituted might makes right for justice. THAT is what you propose.
Pablo: Juan: alllegedly nobody can ever agree on what proportionality means. This is a strawman. I never stated this and do not agree with it.
Juan: alllegedly nobody can ever agree on what proportionality means.
Pablo: Juan: It's like blindmen agreeing on what is a color, and what the difference between red and green is. It is like two able and willing persons agreeing on what is proportional.
Juan: It's like blindmen agreeing on what is a color, and what the difference between red and green is.
"For me, proportionality is X" . This is indisputable. Furthermore, if Bill were to say, "For me, proportionality is X", and we were both to agree that eithers is a fair assessment, we could arrive at an objective truth.
Pablo:You have a lot to learn. Stop pretending like you understand everything.
Pablo:I believe rights are created by contracts.
Stephen Forde:How can one have a theory of contractual enforcement without having a theory of property rights enforcement in the first place. It begs the question.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Pablo:I believe rights are created by contracts. I believe morals are subjective. They are based on each individuals nature and nurture. I believe there is truth, but it is not found by claiming that something is true, when clearly it is false. (ie, claiming there is an objective proportionality)Yet it is not clearly false.
If you can not even begin to tell me an objective definition for a proportional action, then it is clearly false.
Knight_of_BAAWA:If you kill someone for stealing a pack of gum, you have destroyed justice. You have substituted might makes right for justice. THAT is what you propose.
You have yet to show that upholding an individuals rights to DEFEND his property in any way he sees fit is might makes right. That is clearly not what I am proposing. What you truly are proposing is that a third party should arbitrate over anothers life and property. This is unlibertarian and based on falacious logic. You can not propose he both has the right to defend his property, whilst proposing he must use a third parties proportionality to defend it. Where does the third party derive the right to coercion?
Knight_of_BAAWA: Knight_of_BAAWA:Giving that which is deserved Pablo:You are passing the definition.Nope.
That is clearly what you are doing. There is no question about it. You have been called out. If you deny this, then you are lying. Until you can tell me an objective, universally applicable definition for 'justice', or 'proportionality', or any other clearly subjective value, your arguement will continue to fail. The only way to achieve said definition is through agreement between individuals.
Pablo:If you can not even begin to tell me an objective definition for a proportional action, then it is clearly false.
Pablo:You have yet to show that upholding an individuals rights to DEFEND his property in any way he sees fit is might makes right.
Whenever you get tired of trying to shift the burden of proof, let me know.
Juan:How do people who have not signed a contract 'defining' what proportionality is, deal with problems involving proportionality. Do you understand what the problem is ?
I have answered your question multiple times already. If you have not the ability to comprehend what I am saying, perhaps you should try and ask a question without the snobby, all-knowing attitude. The party who is initiating violence opens themselves to an 'open contract' with the victim. Depending on the laws of the property in which the crime has taken place, the criminal may or may not be granted any rights at all (more likely than not, the laws will mimic de facto laws of the society, but they are not required to). If none are granted, the criminal will be at the mercy of the victim to determine what is proportional.
Juan:contracts presuppose rights.
You need to realize that you are refering to two different ideas. The 'right' of which you speak is inherent in any acting organism. It need not be granted or even noted. It is an inalienable aspect of all action. You could clarify what you mean by using the word 'self-sovereign'.
Juan:Anyway, you're attempting to define the problem out of existence.
Let me try and simplify this for you:
The statement, "Chocolate ice cream is the best thing in the world", is incorrect, as it is proposing that the subjective value of best is an objective truth. However, the statement, "In my opinion, chocolate ice cream is the best thing in the world", is undeniable and objectively true.
If I took three people, one which thinks vanilla is the best thing in the world, and two which think chocolate is the best thing in the world, I can not logically say "Chocolate is the best in the world". The same is true if 6,000,000,000 agree to chocolate being the best, and 1 thinks vanilla is the best. It is still a falacious statement. I could however say, "According to these 6,000,000,000 people, chocolate is the best thing in the world", and be correct. The same thing occurs if you are attempting to find an objective definition for the subjective value of 'proportional'.
My argument is simple: if you have agreed to what is 'proportional', or 'just', then you can be held to that definition. Anything else will require coercion.
I hope you can see the dangers of your falacious argument.
Juan:Why ? Just because we 'agree' ? Well, we could agree that the earth is flat too...
The earth being flat is not a subjective value.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Pablo:If you can not even begin to tell me an objective definition for a proportional action, then it is clearly false.Non sequitur.
You are claiming there is an objective definition to a proportional action. Since you can provide no proof for your radical claim, you are false. It is not a non-sequitor.
Knight_of_BAAWA:You have yet to show that killing for a pack of gum is proportional.
I am growing bored of this. I am not claiming that it need be proportional. You are. Stop setting up strawmen. If this is how you debate, then I will refuse to debate with you.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Whenever you get tired of trying to shift the burden of proof, let me know.
The burden of proof is still on you. You still have yet to show an objective definition for proportionality. I do not care what you believe is proportional. You have no authority over anothers life or property. You are claiming that authority by use of coercion. This is the reason I am calling you a czar. If you can not realize that, perhaps you should read my posts in the entirety before clicking reply.