Political Theory

Re: Halloween Shooting

Danno — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 05:28:36 GMT

JonBostwick:

Danno:
Perhaps more to the point would have been to ask how likely it would be for a robber to be a 12-yo kid, accompanied by some buddies and his father?

The father wasn't 12, and the children were wearing masks.

Wearing masks on Halloween? Of course they were.

Even in a mask, a 12-yo has the stature and physique of a 12-yo. I've seen some big 12-yo kids - but they don't look like adults, not even at first glance. I don't much care what face you want to put on it - it was remarkably poor judgment on the part of the shooter, and there's no getting around that.

If a cop had shoot a kid with a toy gun this same court would have let him walk, and this same reporter would be talking about a tragic accident and our post 9-11 reality.

I disagree. Had that kid with a toy gun been trick-or-treating on Halloween night, with no evidence of any crime being committed but the mask and the toy gun, the community would be howling for the cop's blood. The courts often allow horrid behavior from cops - but this was over the line, even if the shooter had been a cop.

Anyone who thinks justice will be reached by putting his man back in a cage is a fool.

Justice? Probably not available in any fashion. The closest you could get would be restitution, and that's not gonna happen, either. Putting the fool in a cage won't improve anyone's life, either.

These are the sorts of things that happen when the institution of property and society begin to break down. And trust me, the state is breaking them down.

Begin to break down? They've been going steadily downhill for my whole life, and reportedly, for well before that. The neighborhood I grew up in, with never a locked door, I won't walk through in daylight without defensive hardware today. But the state is not the only culprit, either - abolishing the state, while arguably a step in the right direction, won't be a cure-all. There are lots of causes and contributing factors - save some ire for them, too.

Danno, noting that his teen complained today about society's having gone downhill - in her short recollection.

Re: Halloween Shooting

Danno — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 05:10:47 GMT

JonBostwick:

Danno:
Danno, reflecting that violence is, indeed, expensive - have you seen the price of ammo lately?

You miss the point.

Killing someone is cheap. Keeping yourself alive after having done so is expensive.

Not invariably. I've seen the expensive stuff - cost me a year of my time and another decade of inconvenience, once upon a time. I've seen the cheap - walked out of that park with a light sweat and a happy smile, and I strongly doubt that anyone filed a police complaint, though there were injuries requiring medical treatment. There have been other incidents - though I can honestly claim that I've only initiated violence once in 25 very odd years, and that one time was non-damaging (and widely viewed as being entirely called for).

In a long and interesting life, I've been assaulted with intent to commit serious damage twice - keeping oneself alive can be expensive no matter what violence you have committed in the past. I've been nearly killed by people who didn't even notice me - motorcycle riding has hazards, too.

The anarchic "violence is expensive, so nobody will, mostly" has always struck me (pun intended) as having quite the flavor of whistling one's way past the cemetary - violence is available in the most structured, controlled societies, and a lack of central control is not gonna make it less of an issue. I suspect that the percentage of people out there who would be willing to commit casual violence to strangers for sport (never mind profit) would amaze you.

We're a violent species, and any philosophy that does not deal with that effectively is impractical.

Danno, not really lookin' for a fight

Re: Halloween Shooting

Bostwick — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 04:21:31 GMT

Danno:
Perhaps more to the point would have been to ask how likely it would be for a robber to be a 12-yo kid, accompanied by some buddies and his father?

The father wasn't 12, and the children were wearing masks.

If a cop had shoot a kid with a toy gun this same court would have let him walk, and this same reporter would be talking about a tragic accident and our post 9-11 reality. Anyone who thinks justice will be reached by putting his man back in a cage is a fool.

These are the sorts of things that happen when the institution of property and society begin to break down. And trust me, the state is breaking them down.

Re: Halloween Shooting

Bostwick — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 04:12:38 GMT

Danno:
Danno, reflecting that violence is, indeed, expensive - have you seen the price of ammo lately?

You miss the point.

Killing someone is cheap. Keeping yourself alive after having done so is expensive.

Re: Halloween Shooting

RobJackson — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 17:09:39 GMT

wasnt me i swer.

theugh he disercd it >: asken me fur my stuf

Re: Halloween Shooting

FreedomIsYellow — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 15:18:57 GMT

JonBostwick:
The guy was obviously previously a victim of a drug robbery. He is forced to defend his property personally because of the state's drug prohibition, this is the result. Murder? No way. If anything the murder charge is the result of a stigma against personal gun ownership.

That may be so, but surely he could have just not answered the door? If someone actually broke into his property then he would have reason to shoot, but as far as I can see he can't use the defense-of-property argument.

Re: Halloween Shooting

Danno — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 14:59:07 GMT

JonBostwick:

Rad Schneider:
You all argue about complicated property laws, but the fact of the matter is the kid knocked on the door (on Halloween no less)...what robber knocks on the door and says "i'm here!"

Someone waiting for you to open the door so they can shove a .45 in your face?

While there are, doubtless, scams that involve knocking upon the victim's door, they're mostly confidence games. Perhaps more to the point would have been to ask how likely it would be for a robber to be a 12-yo kid, accompanied by some buddies and his father?

The guy was obviously previously a victim of a drug robbery. He is forced to defend his property personally because of the state's drug prohibition, this is the result. Murder? No way. If anything the murder charge is the result of a stigma against personal gun ownership.

I'm pretty fond of personal gun ownership, and may even give a pass to a convicted felon having an AK-47. I don't have much sympathy for a guy shooting a kid trick-or-treating, though. Paranoia is fine, but one really does need to be clear about what they're shooting before they pull the trigger.

If he'd been out hunting, and shot at a movement in the bushes, bagging another hunter, it'd still be murder. Carelessness with firearms is, indeed, criminal behavior. Shooting someone for knocking on your door cannot be excused by any previous unrelated event.

Danno, reflecting that violence is, indeed, expensive - have you seen the price of ammo lately?

Re: Halloween Shooting

Bostwick — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 08:39:51 GMT

Rad Schneider:
You all argue about complicated property laws, but the fact of the matter is the kid knocked on the door (on Halloween no less)...what robber knocks on the door and says "i'm here!"

Someone waiting for you to open the door so they can shove a .45 in your face?

The guy was obviously previously a victim of a drug robbery. He is forced to defend his property personally because of the state's drug prohibition, this is the result. Murder? No way. If anything the murder charge is the result of a stigma against personal gun ownership.

Re: Halloween Shooting

Rad Schneider — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 18:20:22 GMT

You all argue about complicated property laws, but the fact of the matter is the kid knocked on the door (on Halloween no less)...what robber knocks on the door and says "i'm here!".

This guys deserves what comes to him.

Re: Halloween Shooting

macsnafu — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 18:04:59 GMT

Danno:
I believe that you are mistaken. Aggression is inexpensive and often highly profitable, or it wouldn't be so bleedin' popular.

Aggression is not inexpensive. It is, however, highly profitable when you can socialize the costs, i.e., force other people to pay for them, as our current governmental system does. Without that system, it would be much more difficult to socialize the costs of aggression, thus creating a tipping point in favor of maintaining anarchy, once established.

Re: Halloween Shooting

10Brandonr — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 05:29:58 GMT

Danno:

Just compensation or restitution won't do me much good if I die in the next assault. If I have good reason to expect such an assault, I have the right to prevent it in any fashion that'll be effective. Mayhaps not Libertarian, but it's a survival trait.

A survival technique, sure, maybe. But still outright murder. Just because he made an aggression in the past, does not mean he will again, you cannot judge future actions of an individual in such a way morally. If you have good reason to suspect an assault in the future, protect yourself or hire someone to protect you.

Danno:

I see. Who decides what "just" is, or what "proportionate" is?

I prefer a society in which the initiator of such situations is risking considerable loss. In my personal life, I insist upon it.

Either the aggressor and victim can negotiate restitution or compensation privately, or private mediators can be used to give a fair judgment of what "just" could be considered.

Proportionate will be decided mostly by the initial victim. If the aggression is against your life (If it has any possibility of being fatal), you may use any amount of force necessary to defend your life. If it is an aggression against your property and is intentional, you may use just enough force to reclaim your property and/or to end the aggression against your property. This means it could be justifiable to end the life of the aggressor, if it is necessary. If the aggressor feels that your self-defense was not proportional, he may pursue legal action. Where a private court can decide.

Danno:

I believe that you are mistaken. Aggression is inexpensive and often highly profitable, or it wouldn't be so bleedin' popular. Sudden, vicious retaliation is, however, an effective deterrent. I've been attacked, now and again, in a long and too-interesting life. The only one who did not regret the decision to attack me got away - and even he may have decided that it had been a bad idea.

Aggression is inexpensive and highly profitable in our current landscape, but in a society where many individuals may be well-armed, and defense is private, efficient, affordable, fair, and reliable, I can't imagine the risk being worth the profit in most circumstances.

Re: Halloween Shooting

Danno — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 02:50:14 GMT

10Brandonr:

Danno:

Not so fast. If, indeed, the earlier attack was an anomaly, and there is no reasonable expectation of it being repeated, you're right. If, however, this guy who cold-cocked me last week has a reputation for such behavior, and there is cause to believe that it may be repeated, I'll claim the right of preventative maintainance, and reserve the right to prevent future attacks in any fashion that seems effective.

No one has the right to 'Preventive maintenance', or whatever. You only have the right to self-defense, just compensation and, just restitution.

Just compensation or restitution won't do me much good if I die in the next assault. If I have good reason to expect such an assault, I have the right to prevent it in any fashion that'll be effective. Mayhaps not Libertarian, but it's a survival trait.

Danno:

If someone steals my property (let's call him Clyde - my cat's name), and I have evidence he did so, I can go to Clyde and demand reparations. If he refuses to negotiate directly, and refuses a reasonable mediation, and does not offer a reasonable alternative mediation, then I'll have to obtain reparations by either stealth or force. My nominal fee for stealth or force is 100,000 ounces of gold, or property of equivalent value. If this fee seems steep, it can be avoided - by refraining from stealing my property, or by acceeding to reasonable mediation. But if Clyde stole my stuff, and won't play nice in the reparations game - then I don't feel obligated to play nice myself, and will take anything of Clyde's that I can get my hands on.

Sometimes, this 'third party mediator' stuff is overthought. In an anarchy (or any reality you can think of), a person who cannot protect their property does not own that property - it belongs to the first person who comes along who is strong enough to take it. Defense of self and property is a needful skill - which is, admittedly, one of the downsides of anarch^H^H^H^H^H^Hreality.

No, No, No. Anything more than just compensation or just restitution is theft. The thief still has the right to his property he justifiably and honestly owns. The above example is an example of militant self-defense and retribution, which is not libertarian. Libertarianism provides the right to proportionate self-defense to immediate aggressions, just restitution for gains-based recovery, and just compensation for loss-based recovery.

I see. Who decides what "just" is, or what "proportionate" is?

I prefer a society in which the initiator of such situations is risking considerable loss. In my personal life, I insist upon it.

I also disagree with your belief that anarchy is a battle of strengths. Humans usually don't just compete, but rather they cooperate competitively. Most men are stronger than children, yet few would harm a child, no matter the gains. And few would invade their unarmed neighbor, for their new flat-screen TV. These decisions are made just on moral grounds. Aggression is expensive and dangerous. In a free market anarchy, both self-defense, private defense, and morals will prevent this "battle of strengths". I think you could agree with this.

I believe that you are mistaken. Aggression is inexpensive and often highly profitable, or it wouldn't be so bleedin' popular. Sudden, vicious retaliation is, however, an effective deterrent. I've been attacked, now and again, in a long and too-interesting life. The only one who did not regret the decision to attack me got away - and even he may have decided that it had been a bad idea.

Danno, who flies the Gadsen flag.

Re: Halloween Shooting

Danno — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 02:36:23 GMT

macsnafu:

{...} But here's the part of the story that I don't get:

krazy kaju:
Police said they also charged a 19-year-old in his home, Ericka Patrice Pee, with obstruction of justice when she was caught trying to run away after the shooting with $7,500 in cash. Patterson did not give an explanation for the money.

Um, what? What does any of this have to do with the shooting?? Why does she need to explain the money away? How was she obstructing justice by trying to leave the premises? There's nothing in the story to indicate her involvement in the shooting incident.

She was reportedly attempting to leave with the shooter, he'd already been convicted of retailing cocaine (which makes the money suspect), and fleeing the scene of a crime with the accused is 'aiding and abetting'. I got this from a mass-media news source, so any of this information could be wrong.

Danno, who would have applauded her for running away from the shooter...

Re: Halloween Shooting

10Brandonr — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 23:49:56 GMT

Danno:

Not so fast. If, indeed, the earlier attack was an anomaly, and there is no reasonable expectation of it being repeated, you're right. If, however, this guy who cold-cocked me last week has a reputation for such behavior, and there is cause to believe that it may be repeated, I'll claim the right of preventative maintainance, and reserve the right to prevent future attacks in any fashion that seems effective.

No one has the right to 'Preventive maintenance', or whatever. You only have the right to self-defense, just compensation and, just restitution.

Danno:

If someone steals my property (let's call him Clyde - my cat's name), and I have evidence he did so, I can go to Clyde and demand reparations. If he refuses to negotiate directly, and refuses a reasonable mediation, and does not offer a reasonable alternative mediation, then I'll have to obtain reparations by either stealth or force. My nominal fee for stealth or force is 100,000 ounces of gold, or property of equivalent value. If this fee seems steep, it can be avoided - by refraining from stealing my property, or by acceeding to reasonable mediation. But if Clyde stole my stuff, and won't play nice in the reparations game - then I don't feel obligated to play nice myself, and will take anything of Clyde's that I can get my hands on.

Sometimes, this 'third party mediator' stuff is overthought. In an anarchy (or any reality you can think of), a person who cannot protect their property does not own that property - it belongs to the first person who comes along who is strong enough to take it. Defense of self and property is a needful skill - which is, admittedly, one of the downsides of anarch^H^H^H^H^H^Hreality.

No, No, No. Anything more than just compensation or just restitution is theft. The thief still has the right to his property he justifiably and honestly owns. The above example is an example of militant self-defense and retribution, which is not libertarian. Libertarianism provides the right to proportionate self-defense to immediate aggressions, just restitution for gains-based recovery, and just compensation for loss-based recovery.

I also disagree with your belief that anarchy is a battle of strengths. Humans usually don't just compete, but rather they cooperate competitively. Most men are stronger than children, yet few would harm a child, no matter the gains. And few would invade their unarmed neighbor, for their new flat-screen TV. These decisions are made just on moral grounds. Aggression is expensive and dangerous. In a free market anarchy, both self-defense, private defense, and morals will prevent this "battle of strengths". I think you could agree with this.

Re: Halloween Shooting

macsnafu — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 19:13:58 GMT

krazy kaju:
On the other, the man has to be pretty stupid to actually shoot a trick-or-treater.

I think we can all agree on that. Stupid or insane. Certainly unjustified. But here's the part of the story that I don't get:

krazy kaju:
Police said they also charged a 19-year-old in his home, Ericka Patrice Pee, with obstruction of justice when she was caught trying to run away after the shooting with $7,500 in cash. Patterson did not give an explanation for the money.

Um, what? What does any of this have to do with the shooting?? Why does she need to explain the money away? How was she obstructing justice by trying to leave the premises? There's nothing in the story to indicate her involvement in the shooting incident.