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)?
nirgrahamUK: Brainpolice:If you just shoot someone just because they are on your property, you are very clearly still a murderer this is question begging, isnt it?
Brainpolice:If you just shoot someone just because they are on your property, you are very clearly still a murderer
this is question begging, isnt it?
Depends on how you define the word murder.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Brainpolice:Also, it wouldn't make sense for someone to favor libertarianism if they thought that it would lead to negative consequences.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_justitia_ruat_caelum
is one possibility
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Brainpolice:I wouldn't immediately shoot upon merely seeing this person in my house. Perhaps I would threaten to shoot, but by no means does it necessarily mean I will have to. I would only have to shoot if they persistantly threaten my life. You're just expressing your own hasty preferance to immediately shoot, and the theory that most people would immediately shoot without even threatening or attempting to get a better grasp of the situation is untenable.
Hippie.
But in all seriousness now, let's imagine you're in a house in downtown Detroit and you hear somebody breaking into your house, you have a gun under your pillow. Would you be justified in shooting somebody for breaking in?
Brainpolice:To treat libertarianism as if it has no relationship to other goals is nonsensical.
Of course treating libertarianism as devoid from reality makes perfect sense to you.
If I catch you in my yard or in my barn, and I immediately just shoot you without even asking you to leave or trying to understand why you are there, I think it's pretty clear that I've essentially just engaged in murder. The fact that the people might be technical tresspassers doesn't mean that I can just shoot people for no good reason other than the fact that they're on my property. Someone has to be threatening your life or at least persistantly refusing to cooperate or leave for a legitimate question of using force on them to arise. Now, if upon discovering these people in your yard or in your barn, they physically threaten you, then that would be genuine self-defense. And if you ask them to leave and they refuse, perhaps force might start to become necessary. But there's a big difference between that and just shooting people only on the basis that they happen to be on your property.
Brainpolice:This thread is about concept formation in relation to libertarian principles and the extent to which violence is justified in defense of property.
Shouldn't that be up to the OP, Daniel Waite? Why are you the sole arbiter of what the discussion is about?
Brainpolice:You are functioning as a troll by bringing up things like feminism and anti-racism, which has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
But isn't that exactly what we are talking about when we talk about social values, having social ideals and then conflating them with libertarianism? You can call me a troll if it makes you feel more like a man, but name calling on it's own is a not a refutation of my arguments.
Brainpolice:As for your weak arguments about goals, libertarianism has goals.
What part specifically was weak? Or is this just more name calling?
Brainpolice:Libertarianism is a social theory of justice.
How so? Whose model for justice? What is legal, illegal? What ends are promoted by this justice system? Who designed it? Who judges based on it? Who decides penalties within it? Is there only one social theory (a monopoly on justice) or are there multiple? Who decided that?
Death can be considered a negative consequence, and yet it is a consequence of life, which I fully endorse. Liberty should not be conflated (IMO) with idealism or utopian ideals. We can say that a just world may be hard, or cruel, or unforgiving. And I don't see the moral trespass in doing so. Subjectivism and moralism is the role the state tries to assume.
Brainpolice:Suppose someone told you they favored "war" as an end in and of itself while simultaneously openly aknowledging that war has horrible consequences. Would that make any sense to you?
Are we under an obligation to "make sense" to others? Your opinions and values only matter to me when you interfere with my rights. If you want to worship your rectum by sticking your head up your ass until you suffocate, have at it my good man. I support your self-love and asphyxiation fetish, even if it has negative consequences for you, and I personally don't find it worthwhile.
Brainpolice:As for Long's views on libertarianism and feminism, yes - that heritage is a matter of history, particularly the history of individualist anarchism, which tended to embrace early feminism from a libertarian perspective. I already clarified this matter to you reapeatedly anyways, and you've yet to respond to the argument I made.
BIG SURPRISE! More lies!
Hey, I sourced the article and quoted Long directly, you don't need to spin meister it. It's pretty clear what Dilbert Long thinks from what he plainly wrote. Save the propaganda for your YouTube videos and blog. No one is buying manure today, the market has dried up.
Brainpolice:I'm not neither lieing to myself or lieing to you.
Oh, there is lying. I'm still unsure who the target of the deception is though.
GilesStratton: Brainpolice:To treat libertarianism as if it has no relationship to other goals is nonsensical. Of course treating libertarianism as devoid from reality makes perfect sense to you.
Non-sequitor. It does not follow from the premise that libertarianism has a relationship to other goals that it is "devoid from reality". Try again. You're not even remotely seriously engaging me here, you realize? I'd be really nice to have an honest conversation or debate about the topic instead of being perpetually trolled.
GilesStratton: Brainpolice:I wouldn't immediately shoot upon merely seeing this person in my house. Perhaps I would threaten to shoot, but by no means does it necessarily mean I will have to. I would only have to shoot if they persistantly threaten my life. You're just expressing your own hasty preferance to immediately shoot, and the theory that most people would immediately shoot without even threatening or attempting to get a better grasp of the situation is untenable. Hippie. But in all seriousness now, let's imagine you're in a house in downtown Detroit and you hear somebody breaking into your house, you have a gun under your pillow. Would you be justified in shooting somebody for breaking in?
You guys are arguing past one another again.
You're clearly referring to a situation where you feel your life is threatened(someone break's into your house in the middle of the night in downtown Detroit), while BrainPolice is SPECIFICALLY referring to a situation where your life ISN'T being threatened.
No, not hippy. There is nothing remotely hippyish about not being 100% gung-ho to bust a cap in someone.
As for your question, you'd be justified only if it becomes necessary. But it is not always necessary.
nirgrahamUK: Brainpolice: If you just shoot someone just because they are on your property, you are very clearly still a murderer this is question begging, isnt it?
Brainpolice: If you just shoot someone just because they are on your property, you are very clearly still a murderer
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."
Brainpolice:It does not follow from the premise that libertarianism has a relationship to other goals
You still have not explained what these goals are, who came up with them, how they are necessary for libertarianism etc.
Brainpolice:As for your question, you'd be justified only if it becomes necessary. But it is not always necessary.
And who decides when it is necessary? Who sets this subjective standard? What consequences are there for someone who takes an action in self-defense, when the boundaries of what self-defense is appropriate are not defined?
"We[libertarians] pioneered the ideas that today are associated with the left—class conflict, anti-corporatism, and worker empowerment (as well, incidentally, as feminism, antiracism, antimilitarism, and environmentalism)."
Long is CLEARLY referring to the history of invidiualist anarchism and libertarianism.
Troll harder.
nibbler491:Troll harder.
Who are you referring to?
Brainpolice:Once again, LS, you are functioning as a troll.
Which is doubleplus bad, no?
Brainpolice:This thread is about concept formation in relation to libertarian principles and the extent to which violence is justified in defense of property. You are functioning as a troll by bringing up things like feminism and anti-racism, which has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
Topics generally tend to move from the original focus, in fact, on these forums. They always do, you've done the same thing many times so I can only assume that you're not managing to maintain a straight face whilst typing this.
Brainpolice:As for your weak arguments about goals, libertarianism has goals. Libertarianism is a social theory of justice. You cannot divorce libertarianism from a concept of justice
Now honestly, do you really feel the need to insert the "weak" in their BP? I'm curious to know what that adds to the discussion. Actually, libertarianism means adherence to the NAP, nothing else. You may well have other goals you find desirable, but more than an economic analysis of how likely those goals are to be acheived upon abolition of the state there's not much you can do as a libertarian.
Of course, as an antiracist you can argue why racism is bad, evil etc. But as a libertarian? No.
Brainpolice:So unless you wish to devolve into a purely utilitarian approach to libertarianism, which Rothbard explicitly denounced, you're going to have to reconcile with the fact that there must be a comprehensive philosophy of liberty in order for it to be coherant.
This has nothing to do with utilitarianism and everything to do with you enforcing your personal values on to everybody else.
Correct, only, you're speaking for everybody else here when you talk of negative consequences. I'd be thrilled 'with many of the things you'd be disgusted with. Once again, economic analysis can tell us what will happen, there's not much more you can do that make that economic analysis. Of course, the fact that you've avoided doing so is very telling.
Why is the early anarchist history any more important than recent anarchist history, like when libertarianism is seen as conservative by many. Don't get me wrong I generally oppose both the libertarians and the conservatives who make such claims and would claim that most of the time they're neither, or at least confused libertarians/ conservatives at any rate.
But that's not important.
Brainpolice:. I'm being repeatedly misunderstood, misrepresented and trolled by you.
Poor baby.