And besides, determining objectively "equivalent" consequences would simply allow for economical decision-making on the part of the offender. "Hmm, is it worth the 6 months in prison I'll get for smashing my Ex's car window? Who am I kidding? Of course it is, this'll be so sweet!" I'd prefer not to live in a world of reactionary equivalences and be able to stop people however I choose when I know they are aware of what they are doing. Keep in mind, your example involves a child.
Not a very difficult question. If somebody tresspasses on your property, you have the right to make them leave by whatever methods work. If they refuse to leave, you can make them leave, even if this means shooting them. We have to keep in mind that if we did live in a libertarian society, people would not shoot other people for walking on their lawn. Common sense and judgement will prevail. Ultimately, if it comes down to it though, if somebody intrudes your property and you shoot them, you should always be given the benifit of the doubt.
...And nobody has ever taught you how to live out on the street, But now you're gonna have to get used to it...
Rothbard had the wrong conclusion. If I'm a leftist and feel that everyone should be forced to share their bubble gum, is a Rothbard-style punishment truly a punishment?The punishment must be greater than the crime.
Don't allow leftists to play games with definitions! Some of the libertarian-leaning leftists at this forum will try to redefine "left-wing" back to its original defition (Third Estate, limited government, free-markets, laissez-faire reforms, etc.). Fine! We non-leftists can't stop them from using their own personal definitions; they can use whatever labels they want to describe any concept they want.However, they have the audacity to then use their personal definition of "left-wing" (remember, the original definition, which is no longer valid) to prove that modern leftists are more libertarian than modern rightists! They will say that libertarianism is "inherently leftist" (again, using the original, no longer valid definition), and use that to insist that we should prefer and side with modern leftists over modern rightists.
Question their motives.
Ego: Rothbard had the wrong conclusion. If I'm a leftist and feel that everyone should be forced to share their bubble gum, is a Rothbard-style punishment truly a punishment?The punishment must be greater than the crime.
An you advocate yet another anti-libertarian policy: Social engineering.
Peace
Social engineering?
If you continue Rothbard's logic, it's not immoral for leftists to use the government force everyone to pay for universal healthcare because they too are being forced by the government to fund it.
Ego:If you continue Rothbard's logic, it's not immoral for leftists to use the government force everyone to pay for universal healthcare because they too are being forced by the government to fund it.
Nope.
I would either A) call the cops (private or public cops depending on what kind of society we are talking about here) or B) Use force and physically remoive him, show the gun at first and tell him/her to leave and if they threatened violence against me, my family or tried to rob me then I would either shoot them or physically remove them some other way.
Then it seems you are not arguing that proportionality doesn't apply to defense. In any case, though, I fail to see just how you can see death as proportionate to trespass.
It seems to me that you're leaving threat entirely out of the equation. I can use lethal force on you not only after you attempt to kill me, but after you threaten to do so.
In this case trespass is all the intruder has done so far (assuming that's true for the sake of argument). But if he's inside your locked home after midnight, say, it's reasonable to infer that he intends to commit further crime such as burglary, rape or murder, and that he will react with violence if caught. He is therefore a deadly threat, and should be treated exactly as would a man pointing a gun at your head and threatening to kill you.
The same would not apply to a passer-by who accidentally puts his foot over your property line. There is no death penalty for trespassing--lethal force is permissible only in cases where the trespasser is reasonably seen as posing a deadly threat.
--Len.
Juan:Killing or even shooting an unarmed intruder sounds to me like a criminal act itself. It is not proportional at all.
I suspect you don't really mean that: if a 250# unarmed man attempted to rape your 98# wife, would you insist that she defend herself using only her fists? There's a reason firearms are referred to as "equalizers." What you're probably picturing is the reverse case, in which a 60# teenager breaks into a 250# karate champion's home. You're imagining how unfair it would be if that great big bear of a man shot the young punk in the face with a bazooka.
If so, I would suggest you not use "armed" and "unarmed" as if they describe two specific threat levels. Many unarmed men could easily kill with their fists. Even a weakling can easily kill bare-handed someone who was weaker still. Instead you should speak of "threatening" and "non-threatening," realizing that the notion of "threatening" is fuzzy at best.
I'd agree with you that shooting someone who clearly poses no threat is a disproportionate response.
Stranger:You have the right to shoot him in self-defense, but not to kill him. Aim appropriately.
Stranger is half right. You always shoot to stop, not to kill. However, that has no affect on your aim: always aim for the center of mass. The difference between shooting to stop and shooting to kill is that in the former case you stop shooting when the threat is ended. I.e., when he ceases to threaten you, you don't finish him off.