Brainpolice said:For example, one's ownership over their home, even if it is a just case of ownership, does not give you the right to assault and murder people just because they are in one's home. In other words, property rights do not trump life and liberty.
That strikes me as odd. I thought... well, I remember reading two very poignant scenarios in which consistency in justice must prevail over liberal morality if consistency is to be maintained.
One example was that a man who has been lost in the woods for days and is on the verge of dying comes onto your cabin property and begins shuffling through your kitchen. You shoot him. Are you in the wrong or the right? The article said in the right -- for you were defending your property.
If you invite a friend over for dinner and then shank him as soon as he enters the door, well, that certainly feels different, but why is one okay and not the other (at least according to my understanding of BP's statements)?
liberty student:isn't that the responsibility of the parent?
Responsibility? Crazy.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
liberty student:Can we get a forum consensus, that if people quote or reference Long, they also source the comic strips he gets his ideas from?
You know, I always did find the comic versions of the Nichomachean Ethics, Human Action, and the Tractacus more accessible.
liberty student: But how is that any more absurd than aborting a fetus? Why is the toddler superior to a fetus? Or a senior citizen? Or a vagrant?
But how is that any more absurd than aborting a fetus? Why is the toddler superior to a fetus? Or a senior citizen? Or a vagrant?
If you are talking about blowing their brains out for accidental trespassing, then no more absurd, I suppose. Abortion is a different issue.
liberty student: If babies are wandering around, and mistakenly ending up on someone else's property, isn't that the responsibility of the parent?
If babies are wandering around, and mistakenly ending up on someone else's property, isn't that the responsibility of the parent?
Yes. How that would give you the right to use deadly force against them is for you to demonstrate.
liberty student: By extension, if the baby falls into a ditch on my property, are you going to tell me that the ditch should have been guarded against rogue infants?
By extension, if the baby falls into a ditch on my property, are you going to tell me that the ditch should have been guarded against rogue infants?
Given that a baby falling into a ditch is probably a rare occurrence, no.
liberty student: Or that I am obligated to rescue the infants?
Or that I am obligated to rescue the infants?
Legally, perhaps not. Ethically, certainly.
liberty student: Can I use passive defenses like half mad, rabies infested guard dogs or moats?
Can I use passive defenses like half mad, rabies infested guard dogs or moats?
Yes. But then you would probably be responsible for harm that befell accidental trespassers.
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
nirgrahamUK: Brainpolice:A floating axoim is meaningless without a specific definition of its terms and its context relative to other principles. this seems to be a blind assertion. anyway, in advocating the position that i am , for the purposes of stretching our minds... the 'floating axiom' of non- initiation of aggression HAS a specific definition. it means not being the first to use force against anothers property. also it IS in a context relative to other principes. i.e. it is supreme, it states what is not allowed, initiating aggression. it says everything else, that hasnt been contractually agreed not to be done, is do-able.
Brainpolice:A floating axoim is meaningless without a specific definition of its terms and its context relative to other principles.
this seems to be a blind assertion.
anyway, in advocating the position that i am , for the purposes of stretching our minds...
the 'floating axiom' of non- initiation of aggression
HAS a specific definition. it means not being the first to use force against anothers property.
also it IS in a context relative to other principes.
i.e. it is supreme, it states what is not allowed, initiating aggression. it says everything else, that hasnt been contractually agreed not to be done, is do-able.
It's not a blind assertion, it's a matter of proper concept formation. It's actually an epistemological matter.
The NAP, by itself, divorced from a comprehensive definition of aggression and its relationship to other more specific principles such as personal sovereignty (otherwise called self-ownership), is a floating abstraction that can be interpreted in a myriad of ways. Likewise, your specific conception of property rights is begged. You cannot just reduce everything to "The NAP" without specifying all of the things that this really implies.
Brainpolice: nirgrahamUK: Brainpolice:A floating axoim is meaningless without a specific definition of its terms and its context relative to other principles. this seems to be a blind assertion. anyway, in advocating the position that i am , for the purposes of stretching our minds... the 'floating axiom' of non- initiation of aggression HAS a specific definition. it means not being the first to use force against anothers property. also it IS in a context relative to other principes. i.e. it is supreme, it states what is not allowed, initiating aggression. it says everything else, that hasnt been contractually agreed not to be done, is do-able. It's not a blind assertion, it's a matter of proper concept formation. It's actually an epistemological matter. The NAP, by itself, divorced from a comprehensive definition of aggression and its relationship to other more specific principles such as personal sovereignty (otherwise called self-ownership), is a floating abstraction that can be interpreted in a myriad of ways. Likewise, your specific conception of property rights is begged. You cannot just reduce everything to "The NAP" without specifying all of the things that this really implies.
You forgot to answer my questions.
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."
To clarify something: it's not that I think rights are in a heirarchy so much as an interconnected network. Rights are always contextual upon the consistant respecting of other rights in the network. Otherwise, one's definition of right A is going to conflict with one's definition of right B, and the overall social theory starts to fall apart. So it's not that the right to life is necessarily "higher" than property rights, it's just that property rights cannot violate the right to life. Both property rights and the right to life should consistantly be upheld, and if they start to contradict eachother in your framework then you have misdefined something along the way or made some mistakes in the process of concept formation. The sense in which there is a heirarchy is in terms of the order in which the concepts logically derive or follow.
My objection to thin/plumb-line libertarianism is that it actually selectively puts property above the NAP and misdefines property rights in a way that contradicts the right to life and liberty. The logical result of my approach does not get rid of property rights or their enforcement, but puts them into the proper context of the non-initiation of violence, rather than treating the NAP as a floating axoim without much in the way of specification and little to no concern for proportionality. Normatively, property rights do not require violence to be enforced. Violence is only required in the process of enforcement given conditions of escalation and a threat to life. Ultimately, I think that philosophy and incentives protects rights more than violence.
Brainpolice: To clarify something: it's not that I think rights are in a heirarchy so much as an interconnected network. Rights are always contextual upon the consistant respecting of other rights in the network. Otherwise, one's definition of right A is going to conflict with one's definition of right B, and the overall social theory starts to fall apart. So it's not that the right to life is necessarily "higher" than property rights, it's just that property rights cannot violate the right to life. Both property rights and the right to life should consistantly be upheld, and if they start to contradict eachother in your framework then you have misdefined something along the way or made some mistakes in the process of concept formation. My objection to thin/plumb-line libertarianism is that it actually selectively puts property above the NAP and misdefines property rights in a way that contradicts the right to life and liberty. The logical result of my approach does not get rid of property rights or their enforcement, but puts them into the proper context of the non-initiation of violence, rather than treating the NAP as a floating axoim without much in the way of specification.
To clarify something: it's not that I think rights are in a heirarchy so much as an interconnected network. Rights are always contextual upon the consistant respecting of other rights in the network. Otherwise, one's definition of right A is going to conflict with one's definition of right B, and the overall social theory starts to fall apart. So it's not that the right to life is necessarily "higher" than property rights, it's just that property rights cannot violate the right to life. Both property rights and the right to life should consistantly be upheld, and if they start to contradict eachother in your framework then you have misdefined something along the way or made some mistakes in the process of concept formation.
My objection to thin/plumb-line libertarianism is that it actually selectively puts property above the NAP and misdefines property rights in a way that contradicts the right to life and liberty. The logical result of my approach does not get rid of property rights or their enforcement, but puts them into the proper context of the non-initiation of violence, rather than treating the NAP as a floating axoim without much in the way of specification.
Wonderful, now, can you answer my questions?
GilesStratton: Brainpolice:Hardly. I'm repeating the same points to some people because they keep hounding me with questions that misunderstand what the initial point is, as if I'm argueing against genuine self-defense when I'm not. I asked you a question, you didn't answer. Now, you're trying to save face. Luckily for you, I'll give you the chance. If I live in downtown Freetown and a number of houses have been broken into recently in my area, and the people inside murdered, do I have the right to shoot somebody if they break into my house? Secondly, am I right in thinking that if somebody is hanging on a flagpole outside my window, do they have the right to break my window to save themselves? Am I right in thinking that your position is that they do since the right to life and liberty comes above that of property?
Brainpolice:Hardly. I'm repeating the same points to some people because they keep hounding me with questions that misunderstand what the initial point is, as if I'm argueing against genuine self-defense when I'm not.
I asked you a question, you didn't answer. Now, you're trying to save face. Luckily for you, I'll give you the chance.
If I live in downtown Freetown and a number of houses have been broken into recently in my area, and the people inside murdered, do I have the right to shoot somebody if they break into my house?
Secondly, am I right in thinking that if somebody is hanging on a flagpole outside my window, do they have the right to break my window to save themselves? Am I right in thinking that your position is that they do since the right to life and liberty comes above that of property?
You're misrepresenting him again, despite him repeating OVER and OVER that he is not advocating against self-defense. He is arguing against using ASYMMETRICAL force against someone. If you believe your life is being threatened(like it is in your scenario), then you absolutely have the right to protect yourself, even if that means killing that person. It is all about proportionality. When a person violates your rights, they are forfeiting their rights in PROPORTION to how much they have violated yours. Like BP has repeated ad nauseum, DIVORCED FROM ANY CONTEXT(this is important because everyone keeps adding context and going "If 27 rapist/murderers were on my property armed to the teeth, would I be justified in killing them BP?"), a violation of property DOES NOT mean a person has forfeited his right to life. The context is what determines how much of their rights have been forfeited. In a free society, arbiters would decide if the force you used was legitimate in regards to the context(if the person/person's family felt that you used disproportional force).
Or do you subscribe to the Daniel Waite school of rights, where simply stepping onto a person's property(even if invited, as in the case of a business) immediately removes ALL of your rights, and you are able to be raped, murdered, or even locked into a cage, all at the owners discretion?
nibbler491: GilesStratton: Brainpolice:Hardly. I'm repeating the same points to some people because they keep hounding me with questions that misunderstand what the initial point is, as if I'm argueing against genuine self-defense when I'm not. I asked you a question, you didn't answer. Now, you're trying to save face. Luckily for you, I'll give you the chance. If I live in downtown Freetown and a number of houses have been broken into recently in my area, and the people inside murdered, do I have the right to shoot somebody if they break into my house? Secondly, am I right in thinking that if somebody is hanging on a flagpole outside my window, do they have the right to break my window to save themselves? Am I right in thinking that your position is that they do since the right to life and liberty comes above that of property? You're misrepresenting him again, despite him repeating OVER and OVER that he is not advocating against self-defense. He is arguing against using ASYMMETRICAL force against someone. If you believe your life is being threatened(like it is in your scenario), then you absolutely have the right to protect yourself, even if that means killing that person. It is all about proportionality. When a person violates your rights, they are forfeiting their rights in PROPORTION to how much they have violated yours. Like BP has repeated ad nauseum, DIVORCED FROM ANY CONTEXT(this is important because everyone keeps adding context and going "If 27 rapist/murderers were on my property armed to the teeth, would I be justified in killing them BP?"), a violation of property DOES NOT mean a person has forfeited his right to life. The context is what determines how much of their rights have been forfeited. In a free society, arbiters would decide if the force you used was legitimate in regards to the context(if the person/person's family felt that you used disproportional force). Or do you subscribe to the Daniel Waite school of rights, where simply stepping onto a person's property(even if invited, as in the case of a business) immediately removes ALL of your rights, and you are able to be raped, murdered, or even locked into a cage, all at the owners discretion?
Thankyou for helping to clarify this. I keep clarifying repeatedly that I'm talking about scenarios involving incomplete information or when there is clearly not a threat to life and the person on your property is cooperative, and then people keep bringing up scenarios that are more clear-cut cases of self-defense. And yes - that "Daniel Waite school of rights" is the ridiculous implication of the viewpoint I'm opposing.
Juan:There, can I get some trolling points too ?
Dude, you're Don Juan, King of the Troll people.
Juan:I own a gun. It's my property. It follows that I can shoot anybody I like with it. If you disagree you're a commie who doesn't believe in property rights. Not letting me use MY gun as I see fit is a violation of the NAP.
I'm down with that. But really, they let you have a gun? Geez, the state is really not on the ball.
wombatron:Yes. But then you would probably be responsible for harm that befell accidental trespassers.
Ah yes. The origins of the fenced pool bylaw.
Pretty soon, my property has to meet some standard that protects invaders at my expense, because heaven forbid the barbarians can't pass safely through the gate.
Wombie, I like you a lot, which is why I try not to flame you. Too much. You make me laugh a lot.
* liberty student is happy.
Let's have a straight yes/no answer to this [from anyone]:
Do you believe that someone can do whatever they want (with no limits) to anyone who enters their property, even through ignorance?
EDIT: You may add provisos if you wish
The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community.
liberty student: wombatron:Yes. But then you would probably be responsible for harm that befell accidental trespassers. Ah yes. The origins of the fenced pool bylaw. Pretty soon, my property has to meet some standard that protects invaders at my expense, because heaven forbid the barbarians can't pass safely through the gate. Wombie, I like you a lot, which is why I try not to flame you. Too much. You make me laugh a lot. * liberty student is happy.
There's a small difference between a pool and a rabid dog. But as I said before, many of these issues are continuum problems. Only a free market or common law court, within the context of specific cases, will be able to give good answers.
Thedesolateone: Let's have a straight yes/no answer to this [from anyone]: Do you believe that someone can do whatever they want (with no limits) to anyone who enters their property, even through ignorance? EDIT: You may add provisos if you wish
No.
wombatron:Only a free market or common law court, within the context of specific cases, will be able to give good answers.
Why? Can there be no justice in the absence of a court? It isn't my belief that courts make law, but rather judge law. So what is the underlying law here?
If I equip my perimeter with poisonous sprayers and someone walks across my lawn and dies, am I at fault?
It is my property, and where I can do as I wish, yes? If not, who exercises a higher claim on my property?
I think proportionality is a wonderful moral idea. Like rescuing all of the runaway animals at the shelter. I don't think it's realistic to expect people to always use proportionate force, when you admit, the correct proportions can only be determined ex post facto.