Political Theory

Re: Gun Rights

JonnyD — Sun, 17 Apr 2011 08:28:26 GMT

Yes I have been reading back and I do think I was reaching with it.

I think im much clearer now.Any moral theory has to be universal. The non-aggression axiom is unversal - don't use force on others to be granted the same civility. If I punch you you should be allowed punch me back. If I punch you and prevent you from punching me back im being immoral. Immoral people always create universal rules and then exempt themselves. A thief would want to have a gun in his hand but he doesnt want the victim to have one. A thief doesnt want you to have property rights but wants to have them himself. He doesn't want you to have your car he wants it.

If a criminal breaks in to a home and threatens the occupants life inside. He is creating a universal rule of denial of life by the act of threatening another humans life. He is being immoral because he wants the occupants to die but not himself because he is the one pointing the gun. He is making the killing or threat of another humans life a preferable behaviour. What then, if the occupants get a hold of the gun from him. Im wondering is it acceptable then for the occupants to kill him or at least threaten his life?

This is not to say that anyone who transgresses against another can be penalized by death. The same thing applies I think, that's not to say that when a person steals your hat you can steal his life because he didnt steal or threaten your life.

(Please visit the site to view this media)

Re: Gun Rights

Caley McKibbin — Sun, 17 Apr 2011 07:28:24 GMT

Well the act of breaking into someones house is rejecting their private property.

It's funny that Lao says that you reach with that one. I agree that it is wrong- for the same reason that he was wrong claiming that receiving tuition subsidy is advocating tax extortion. You can exclude classes of people from its application. You can flout the rules circumstantially. There is plenty of gap. To take it to its logical conclusion, every transgression can be penalized by death.

Re: Gun Rights

Clayton — Sun, 17 Apr 2011 02:13:58 GMT

Watch this.

</thread>

Clayton -

Re: Gun Rights

liberty student — Sun, 17 Apr 2011 01:25:17 GMT

Laotzu del Zinn:
Tho I aprreciate a little John Lennon as much as the next guy.... Stolen proprty cannot be legitimate property, or else there's no point in a property system in the first place.

You're right that stolen property cannot be legitimate. That all comes down to what is "legitimate". Ready to go through the looking glass?

Laotzu del Zinn:
And property necessary implies exchangeability, or else property doesn't necessarily lead to the market... which is what I see people say daily on this website. I provided 3 different definitions to back up my claim...

Check your premises please. This is one of those times where understanding AE would be helpful when trying to share ideas.

Re: Gun Rights

Laotzu del Zinn — Sat, 16 Apr 2011 18:43:25 GMT

No, it doesn't. Yes, they do.

You think you're so clever and classless and free, but you're still fucking peasants as far as I can see.
-John Lennon

Tho I aprreciate a little John Lennon as much as the next guy.... Stolen proprty cannot be legitimate property, or else there's no point in a property system in the first place.

And property necessary implies exchangeability, or else property doesn't necessarily lead to the market... which is what I see people say daily on this website. I provided 3 different definitions to back up my claim...

Re: Gun Rights

No2statism — Sat, 16 Apr 2011 17:52:28 GMT

Here is a good reading on Guns.

http://vaguninfo.com/documents/GunFacts5-0-press.pdf

There are other sources saying it's not true, but those sources fail to admit that in the absence of individual firearm ownership, there will be more criminal behavior via knives.

I read that gun deaths are down in the U.K, but you're 2x as likely to be stabbed in UK than you are to be shot in US.

Even if the absence of gun control legislation makes us less safe, it's still not ethical to have it anyway. Society can never be 100% safe, but we're far safer without gun control legislation than we would be with it. Plus a majority of people who are victims of firearm violence are criminals themselves anyway. Just about every time I hear on the local news about someone being shot, it's between two violent criminals.

Re: Gun Rights

liberty student — Sat, 16 Apr 2011 15:15:22 GMT

Laotzu del Zinn:
Ownership implies more than just control, or else governments in fact do own all the property in their territory

No, it doesn't. Yes, they do.

You think you're so clever and classless and free, but you're still fucking peasants as far as I can see.
-John Lennon

Laotzu del Zinn:
It implies exchange most importantly.

It does not. Exchange can occur with ownership, but it isn't necessary for ownership. You're working from a flawed premise, a fallacy of composition.

Re: Gun Rights

Chris_Bacon — Sat, 16 Apr 2011 14:55:01 GMT

rxdawg72:

No, Mr Bacon,

Self defense of the woman who stole your heart and you pledged your entire life to... the little girl upstairs sleeping who amazes you day in and out... the unborn child in your wifes womb...that is self defense. And that is not a bunch of liberal rhetoric... that is aMY life....Sir, you are misquided with your progressive ideals....ideals that do not protect you in the middle of the night. You would prefer that I and my family become a victim first (if that means one of my family losing their life) and THEN use the law to prosecute the offender. Sir, I refuse to become a victim and I damn sure wont allow my family to become one.

I'm not saying that you can't defend yourself and your family, my issue was with the fact that some people were arguing that you can shoot an intruder in the back; which indicates that it wasn't self defense, since the intruders back was turned.

rxdawg72:

Private property is the basis of this society. When you trespass on private property, you have trespassed into someones life. Do you understand the meaning of that? If you do not, then we have no need to discuss anything further.

Private property is the basis of our society, not ever society - the amazonian tribes are an example of this. And to say that tresspassing private property is equivalent of tresspassing someones life, you are equating property to life: property=life. Which is nonsense.

Re: Gun Rights

JonnyD — Sat, 16 Apr 2011 12:51:31 GMT

Does this apply to petty theives and pick pockets? If someone steals a stamp from me, am I justified in bashing his skull in with a hammer?

If it does it wouldnt be a society I would want to live in! I want to live in a society where the human mind and the non-aggression principle reigns supreme. I wouldnt want to be walking through a field on a nice sunny day to get shot for trespassing. If someone steals a stamp or an apple I wouldnt wish to kill them but at worst make them pay back what they stole if I don't feel like their reasons are justified. i would have no problem with a starving person stealing my apple in fact i'd love to give it to him.

That would be still universality. To make them pay back what they took. Or pay back the value of what they took. What I was talking about earlier I was thinking of a criminal breaking into a home and putting the occupants at danger. Stealing a stamp is not putting the owners life at danger. Hmm but what if he needs that stamp to buy himself a meal?

Re: Gun Rights

Laotzu del Zinn — Sat, 16 Apr 2011 12:36:39 GMT

Again, you're proven you own your body by posting. I don't think it's valid to say ownership comes just from exchangability. Because you are exercising control over your own body to argue that you cannot exercise control over your body because it isnt exchangible. If you don't own your body then how do you have responsibility for your thoughts and actions. How do I know you posted your comment? How do I know who im talking to? If you don't own yourself then who does?

Nobody. There is a difference between control and ownership. I can no more exchange control over myself than I can fart and lift off to the moon.

A title, or a right of ownership, establishes the relation between the property and other persons, assuring the owner the right to dispose of the property as they see fit. (From Wikipedia on property)

Ownership involves multiple rights, collectively referred to astitle, which may be separated and held by different parties...

The process and mechanics of ownership are fairly complex since one can gain, transfer and lose ownership of property in a number of ways. (From Wikipedia on ownership)

Title is a legal term for a bundle of rights in a piece of property in which a party may own either a legal interest or an equitable interest.^[1] The rights in the bundle may be separated and held by different parties. It may also refer to a formal document that serves as evidence of ownership. Conveyance of the document may be required in order to transfer ownership in the property to another person. Title is distinct from possession, a right that often accompanies ownership but is not necessarily sufficient to prove it. (From Wikipedia on title)

Ownership differs from possession or control simply because something owned can be exchanged, otherwise governments wuold actually own stuff, which they do not, theifs too. Note that exchange is different than theft or taxation, as it is mutual.

es it is fair but I wasnt arguing shooting I was arguing why can't we tax back. Ok maybe it's not a red herring I just concerned of being accussed of some gun shooting nutter.

Lol I was not trying to accuse you as such. I was just drawing your stance to its' logical end. It would be nice to tax the government tho, tho some would argue you do every time you drive on a road, etc.

Reasonable ways decided by whom though? Are individuals property up to what others decide? If the owner of the house and the criminal breaking in own themselves shouldnt they be responsible for their own actions? So if the criminals preferable behaviour is denial of property doesnt this allow the owner of the house to deny the criminals property (body) in self defense i.e kill him. The criminal is accepting this by the very fact his preferable behaviour is the denial of property. It's not something I would do personally though if I was the owner of the house unless my life or my families life is in danger.

I would argue outright killing one is not justified as the punishment does not fit the crime. Maybe kill a killer, but a petty theif? Imo, that's excessive use of force.

Self ownership isnt real? who owns me or you?

Not everything has to be owned

Re: Gun Rights

Laotzu del Zinn — Sat, 16 Apr 2011 12:19:56 GMT

Basically, Laotzu del Zinn, you're looking at life in strictly utilitarian terms, from what I can tell. Thus any statist has as much value as Ron Paul in the strict, utilitarian sense (though I'm sure most would disagree, lol)

I have my ideals, moral, and ethical positons. But yes, I find utiltaritanism a more "scientific" way of approaching things. But neither am I strictly ends justify means then I am means justify ends.

However, when someone breaks in to steal or do worse, we kill them. They have basically forsaken their internal judgment system to unfairly gain some kind of advantage at my or my family's expense. Thus, it's justified to kill them because of the threat they're issuing

Does this apply to petty theives and pick pockets? If someone steals a stamp from me, am I justified in bashing his skull in with a hammer?

'm curious: how would you have faired if you were a Jew in the concentration camps?

I would never have ended up in one. I have fairly good wilderness survival skills, and I am always on the ready to move somewhere safer in the unlikely event of such things happening here, in this time.

I'm sure there were Jews that thought they would do the same as you... sadly individuals rarely fair well against militaries.

Re: Gun Rights

JonnyD — Sat, 16 Apr 2011 11:45:02 GMT

Again, you're proven you own your body by posting. I don't think it's valid to say ownership comes just from exchangability. Because you are exercising control over your own body to argue that you cannot exercise control over your body because it isnt exchangible. If you don't own your body then how do you have responsibility for your thoughts and actions. How do I know you posted your comment? How do I know who im talking to? If you don't own yourself then who does?

Yes it is fair but I wasnt arguing shooting I was arguing why can't we tax back. Ok maybe it's not a red herring I just concerned of being accussed of some gun shooting nutter.

Personally im not advocating shooting a criminal or stabbing him in the throat. Im trying to reason from first principles.

Reasonable ways decided by whom though? Are individuals property up to what others decide? If the owner of the house and the criminal breaking in own themselves shouldnt they be responsible for their own actions? So if the criminals preferable behaviour is denial of property doesnt this allow the owner of the house to deny the criminals property (body) in self defense i.e kill him. The criminal is accepting this by the very fact his preferable behaviour is the denial of property. It's not something I would do personally though if I was the owner of the house unless my life or my families life is in danger.

Self ownership isnt real? who owns me or you?

Re: Gun Rights

Brutus — Sat, 16 Apr 2011 11:41:57 GMT

I agree, major red herring on Lautzu del Zinn's part.

Basically, Laotzu del Zinn, you're looking at life in strictly utilitarian terms, from what I can tell. Thus any statist has as much value as Ron Paul in the strict, utilitarian sense (though I'm sure most would disagree, lol). However, when someone breaks in to steal or do worse, we kill them. They have basically forsaken their internal judgment system to unfairly gain some kind of advantage at my or my family's expense. Thus, it's justified to kill them because of the threat they're issuing.

I'm curious: how would you have faired if you were a Jew in the concentration camps? Really, I'm curious because ideal-minded people usually always have an answer for that scenario. I say I would have killed the Nazis and escaped as quickly as possible, and I wouldn't have looked back. I would have loved the Allied Forces coming in, and I would be most concerned with protecting my family.

Re: Gun Rights

Laotzu del Zinn — Sat, 16 Apr 2011 11:24:57 GMT

You've just proven you own your body by exercising control over it to post that comment

DId you even read my post? Ownership implies more than just control, or else governments in fact do own all the property in their territory. It implies exchange most importantly. And you can't exchange control over one's self. Sure you could sell yourself into slavery, but even then, you are still the one controlling it physically, if not legally. Self-ownership is a contradiction in terms; it misuses the term "ownership."

Why did you skip over the important part of what I said and then bring up a red herring like asking me if it's okay to shoot Ron Paul?

All Governments violate property. All violaters of property forfeit their right to property. (Is this a fair representation of your view?) Ron Paul is a member of the US government. Therefore, RP has forfeited his right to his property, specifically his person and is fair game for anyone to murder. It's not a red herring, it's the logical conclusion of your positon.

Why can the criminal, initiating force, violate property while the owner, in self defense, cannot violate the criminals property

He can do as he pleases. But many legal codes around the world recognize there is a difference between self-defense and defensive homicide. Once again, if someone steals 50c off me, am I justified in stabbing him in the throat? IMO, no. There are far more reasonable ways to handle said situation. Would I have a problem with a law that didn't punish one for not exercising restraint in self-defense? No. Do I think laws that do are better? Yes.

Anytime you accept a bahaviour that is not universal you are being bullied. So going back to the owner of the house and the criminal. The criminal by breaking in is prefering the denial of property rights over property rights and should have no problem when it is applied back. If he does have a problem, then he is making that behaviour only preferable to him and thus the owner is being bullied.

To say this means you can indiscriminately kill petty thiefs implies that self-ownership is real.. which, once again, is false.

Re: Gun Rights

Brutus — Sat, 16 Apr 2011 11:21:14 GMT

Well, in Theravada Buddhism, which stems from Siddhartha Gautama's days as a Jain, there is absolutely no mystical aspect to karma. I'm inclined to absolutely agree with you there, too.

As for caring about stuff, I agree, I could forsake all my possessions if it meant my family's safety, and I hope any other grown man would do so in a heartbeat. Possessions can be replaced, for the most part, and the first priority in any family man's list ought to be his family's immediate safety. But how about long term safety? Do you not think shelter is a form of it? How about your food? Trust me, if chaos ensued, and people were trying to take your food left and right, I somehow think your passive nature would be pushed to the side and you would really have your family's and your best interest at heart and defend your property by any means possible at the time.

As for karate, hell no I don't waste my time with that stuff lol. I just think it's so pathetic that it's a useful example on here b/c so many karate practitioners that I know remind me of boyscouts and other "tough guy" activities. They really know a whole bunch of nothing and are all talk. I say good old high school wrestling will take a guy a lot farther in the street than karate any day. What can I say? I'm a big MMA fan, and I'd just seen this other guy's pic on here of a fighter so it made me think of the example. You have to admit, though, we all have known at least one pathetic karate instructor in our lives, lol! Funny Cobra Kai reference btw.

Well, I would certainly think it's not easy to take someone's life...but if I had to choose between some guy that broke in my house and my life or my family's, he's going to be deader than a doornail. I will never waste the rest of my life knowing I did the wrong thing by letting my family or myself get hurt instead of wondering if I went to far by killing the guy who broke in. Talk about guilt that lasts a lifetime. If you don't protect your loved ones, what point is there to loving them in the first place?