General

Re: I am a shopkeeper and I shoot bubblegum thieves

wilderness — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 01:44:55 GMT

hayekianxyz:
And this is the exact problem with Rothbardian rationalism. You guys will never stop quibbling over these sorts of questions until you realise that you can't answer them.

Explain to me how a human being will never answer such questions when the thread is obviously humans answering such a question.

Re: I am a shopkeeper and I shoot bubblegum thieves

hayekianxyz — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 00:53:21 GMT

And this is the exact problem with Rothbardian rationalism. You guys will never stop quibbling over these sorts of questions until you realise that you can't answer them. You don't know what the consequences of a particular legal structure will. Nor do I, but I will hazard a guess that any formal institutional structure that allows a store owner to shoot bubble gum thieves won't be adhered to for too long, and thankfully so.

Re: I am a shopkeeper and I shoot bubblegum thieves

CrazyCoot — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 02:31:25 GMT

Nielsio:

Marko:

OK, not really. I am not a shopkeeper. But if I were, I might shoot bubblegum thieves - under certain conditions. And it has nothing to do with any signs posted at the entrance.

This problem was brought to attention here and discussed here.

Rather than derail the first topic or necromance the second, degraded one, I am going to say it here.

Consider this scenario. A shopkeeper spots a bubblegum thief. He locks the entrance door and confronts the thief. He demands the thief relinquish the bubblegum. The thief refuses. The shopkeeper threatens to take the bubblegum by force. The thief points out that he is twice the size of the shopkeeper. The shopkeeper produces a firearm and threatens to shoot the thief, if he does not immediately surrender the bubblegum. The thief refuses to. The shopkeeper shoots the thief (in the leg) and then takes his bubblegum from the wounded thief.

Can anybody honestly object to this? You may find it distasteful of the shopkeeper to care so much about his bubblegum and I myself would certainly prefer to live in a place where shopkeepers were not willing to do this, but there is nothing that can be done against a shopkeeper in these circumstances in a court of law. To claim the shopkeeper's shooting is not justified, is not libertarian it is Tolstoyan.

Only read till here.

The shooting is unnecessarily violent. You will incur more costs from the shooting than from retrieving the bubblegum. I would say it's reckless endangerment for the neighborhood and would report you to get a bad rating.

Context is also important. In a modern society there are far better ways of dealing with such a thief, and the decision to lock the door and demand-or-shoot would be especially reckless. In a more primitive society (but still libertarian) people will take justice more in their own hands and be rougher; they have to.

In general though I think it's psychopathic to shoot a bubble gum thief. This is not how you create a safe society nor a wealthy society (in general nor for individual business owners).

Don't know; there's always the whole deterrent factor to consider. Consequences are an important part of a safe and wealthy society.

Re: I am a shopkeeper and I shoot bubblegum thieves

Marko — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 02:19:59 GMT

JonBostwick:

My position is you have the right to reclaim your property with the minimal amount of force necessary.

I am glad we are of one mind.

Re: I am a shopkeeper and I shoot bubblegum thieves

Bostwick — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 02:06:20 GMT

My position is you have the right to reclaim your property with the minimal amount of force necessary. (A somewhat separate issue from imposing a proportional restitution on the criminal)

Re: I am a shopkeeper and I shoot bubblegum thieves

Marko — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 02:01:50 GMT

JonBostwick:

Marko:
According to you he is a criminal. But in reality whether he is a criminal depends on whether the peaceful demonstrations would be effective or not.

I didn't say that.

Law works the way it does because of moral hazard. Anyone can shoot anyone and then say "I had no choice." The public will reply, "prove it".

Then what exactly are you arguing? I am arguing the ethical right to shoot given the conditions. I am not speculating about court procedures in a stateless society. That is beyond the scope.

Re: I am a shopkeeper and I shoot bubblegum thieves

Bostwick — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 01:54:41 GMT

Marko:
According to you he is a criminal. But in reality whether he is a criminal depends on whether the peaceful demonstrations would be effective or not.

I didn't say that.

Law works the way it does because of moral hazard. Anyone can shoot anyone and then say "I had no choice." The public will reply, "prove it".

Re: I am a shopkeeper and I shoot bubblegum thieves

Marko — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 01:49:34 GMT

JonBostwick:

Dondoolee:
This is not: "Thief steals 5 cent bubblegum you blow his legs off". This is an escalating series of actions

I agree.

I think what makes the shopkeeper seem more within his rights(which was marko's attempt) is because his ultimate use of force was only after a series of escalations, which is how law works.

Then consider a guerilla in a resistance movement who does not go through a series of escalating actions. He does not first protest peacefully and spray around anti-occupation graffiti. He takes up a rifle and starts shooting at the trespassers on the very first day. According to you he is a criminal. But in reality whether he is a criminal depends on whether the peaceful demonstrations would be effective or not.

Re: I am a shopkeeper and I shoot bubblegum thieves

William — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 01:36:17 GMT

Marko:
A hole in the leg is worse than a stolen bubblegum. But then death is worse than being raped. Measuring what is worse does not apply.

Objective measurement is impossible. This is one of the many bat shit reasons our Progressives and social democratic society is insane; the desire to centralize law to Millions (billions?) of people, That is why only decentralized tort law can work best for an individual. It makes the law work for the person, and it is only through custom president trial and error can this be effective. Centralized Nation State Progressive law retards that to the extreme.

When I say I think the person acts with "excessive force" this is just an opinion. I doubt the law would be working to most individuals advantage if this type of philosophy was allowed, it seems to allow business owners to be overly "negligent" with property and to act with too little discretion for most. Measuring what is reasonable can only be taken within the context of culture; measuring what is profitable (in the context of an individuals relation to law) can only be maximized by decentralizing as much as possible.

Re: I am a shopkeeper and I shoot bubblegum thieves

Bostwick — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 01:36:01 GMT

Dondoolee:
This is not: "Thief steals 5 cent bubblegum you blow his legs off". This is an escalating series of actions

I agree.

I think what makes the shopkeeper seem more within his rights(which was marko's attempt) is because his ultimate use of force was only after a series of escalations, which is how law works.

First you get your mortgage bill, then you get the eviction notice, then you get kicked out, if you should resist the evictor he has the right to self defense.

"I'm going to move you out of this house, and I have the right to keep you from stopping me"

Re: I am a shopkeeper and I shoot bubblegum thieves

Marko — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 01:28:31 GMT

Dondoolee:

If you wanted bubblegum stealing to be the issue the actual scenario would be:

1) Thief steals bubblegum

2) I shoot him

I can do this. The shopkeep has no real obligation to take intermediary steps before shooting. If he can later convincingly show that he had every reason to believe that nothing less would suffice to get his bubblegum back.

Re: I am a shopkeeper and I shoot bubblegum thieves

Marko — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 01:20:08 GMT

Dondoolee:

I am not talking about the thief or shop keep acting realistically, it is about the actual action of the thief and shop keep and I think most people would find the action of "Thief physically threatens shop keep so shop keep pulls gun" the real issue.

No. It is the shopkeeper who makes this threat. He wants to know if it is possible for him to get his bubblegum back merely by threatening to shoot.

Re: I am a shopkeeper and I shoot bubblegum thieves

Marko — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 01:17:48 GMT

Lets try to think more about the analogous rape scenario. You would kill a rapist if that was the only way to stop a rape in progress. So how can you object to someone who will shoot a thief in the leg if that is the only he can stop a theft in progress?

A hole in the leg is worse than a stolen bubblegum. But then death is worse than being raped. Measuring what is worse does not apply. A bad thing to an aggressor is better than a bad thing to a victim. A person does not have an obligation to accept any amount of victimisation of himself, even when doing so means the criminal is spared some very bad effect for him. In the bubblegum scenario the thief effectively shot himself. He can not use his right not to get shot as some sort of a shield to enable him to get away with making victims of people.

Re: I am a shopkeeper and I shoot bubblegum thieves

William — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 01:09:57 GMT

Marko:
No, that is not it. Everything between the theft and the shooting is only to try to show that there is indeed no other way for the shopkeeper to get his bubblegum back other than to incapacitate him and then take it from his body. For this to be true the thief has to behave in an unrealistic manner, yes, but so what

I am not talking about the thief or shop keep acting realistically, it is about the actual action of the thief and shop keep and I think most people would find the action of "Thief physically threatens shop keep so shop keep pulls gun" the real issue.

If you wanted bubblegum stealing to be the issue the actual scenario would be:

1) Thief steals bubblegum

2) I shoot him

Anything else is adding to the context and changing the conditions.

ex:

1) Thief steals bubblegum

2) I yell stop

3) Thief doesn't stop

4) I shoot him

This is different. In this case I tried to prevent the thief from sealing vocally ( a less severe form of protecting property), the thief refused to listen, I then escalate with a gun. If all I cared about was stealing bubblegum for an example I would see no need to add extra context. Anytime I add extra context I add to the nature of the legal action.

ex 2:

1) Thief steals bubblegum

2) I close doors on thief

3) Thief refuses to hand over bubblegum

4) thief threatens me

5) I shoot him

This is even more different, physically stopping by the shop keep and physically threatening by the thief adds two more (in most peoples eyes) much more serious conditions. Either the closing of the doors or the physical threat in this situation ought to be the crime under most conditions

Re: I am a shopkeeper and I shoot bubblegum thieves

Marko — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 00:46:38 GMT

Dondoolee:

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think I may have latched on to your train of thought; and I think if the thief were convicted it would not be for the bubble gum theft.

the crime:

...

I think it is possible to argue the nature of the crime and actions of the two have changed. This is not: "Thief steals 5 cent bubblegum you blow his legs off". This is an escalating series of actions, the end result is not just a case of "bubble gum stealing vs gun". By the end the actual bubble gum theft and perhaps your initial preventive action are merely secondary and only a catalyst to the major issue of legal dispute.

No, that is not it. Everything between the theft and the shooting is only to try to show that there is indeed no other way for the shopkeeper to get his bubblegum back other than to incapacitate him and then take it from his body. For this to be true the thief has to behave in an unrealistic manner, yes, but so what.