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)?
I'm wondering if BP's position could be extrapolated to abortion, and the onus falling on the pregnant woman to deliver the baby safely to term after a certain point. As it has been explained to me, a pregnant woman can have an abortion because she is under no obligation to share her body as a vessel with the unborn.
If I can't violently kick people off my property, then I don't see how an abortion is justified. Or is this too much of a tangent?
Brainpolice:My entire point is that in these scenarios, it IS the initiation of force that an a contextless absolutist theory of property rights justifies, on the mere basis that someone is on your property. Ex-post facto revenge and pre-emptive force are both forms of the initiation of force.
My entire point is that in these scenarios, it IS the initiation of force that an a contextless absolutist theory of property rights justifies, on the mere basis that someone is on your property. Ex-post facto revenge and pre-emptive force are both forms of the initiation of force.
It sounds like you're calling the property owner who shoots the trespasser the initiator. Is that accurate? If so, do you not understand that trespass is aggression, or are you ignoring that fact?
Aggression is aggression. Any attempt to apply a magnitude to an aggression is a breeding ground for opinion, probably of the majority. At which point you are no longer free.
Now, I'm going to push this as far as I can... Ready for this?
Bob is a shop owner, open for business. You come into Bob's shop, you pick up items, place them on the counter and wait to hear what your total is. Bob decides your total amounts to a bullet between the eyes. Why? Bob arbitrarily decided to invoke the right to defend his property against trespass.
Now what say you, BP?
I know what I say, I'm NEVER shopping at Bob's store. Why? Well, on the chance he might off me.
Is Bob a murderer? Not in my view, but I doubt he'll do well commercially. (Update: I should ask, "Is Bob within his right to kill the trespasser?", to which I would answer yes. He's a murderer, but the murder was justified as he was defending his property rights. That said, I still wouldn't do business with him.)
This is, of course, one scenario. Let's play with another...
Sue own a shop. However, before you can enter, your must walk up to a window, look over, and if you agree, sign a contract with Sue that says, among other things, that she will not shoot you unless you attempt to inflict harm on her, her customers, her goods or other property she owns. In other words, what happened at Bob's shop will not happen at hers.
Now there is a contract in play that must also be abided. Sue has forfeited her right to shoot those with whom she has contract simply for trespassing. See how that works? It can be done... I think a world ruled by the NAP would be remarkably different than the one we are in now.
as a question of intellectual history, and the development of ideas.
what is the timeline for when block wrote the controversial flagpole lew rockwell article.
and when was his evictionism idea get generated. cause it dawns on me now that in the block is seemingly adopting proportionality. unless he's really being sneaky about it, and just saying something that he think libertarians who accept proportionality can swallow............
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
good illustration daniel. but it may not even be needed if this sentance is true :
Bob is a shop owner, open for business.
because this is an implicit contract for safe passage as a customer on his premises.
maybe?
nirgrahamUK:good illustration daniel. but it may not even be needed if this sentance is true : Bob is a shop owner, open for business. because this is an implicit contract for safe passage as a customer on his premises. maybe?
I see what you're saying, and I agree from a "common sense" perspective. No one in their right mind is going to open up a shop and then shoot their otherwise non-agressing customers.
But to imply there is some kind of implicit contract... I dunno, that seems sneaky.
Now, if, say, there were a sign on the door that said, please come in, we adhere to the "common sense xyz" principle, THEN I see that as a more concrete and less implicit kind of contract.
nirgrahamUK:as a question of intellectual history, and the development of ideas. what is the timeline for when block wrote the controversial flagpole lew rockwell article. and when was his evictionism idea get generated. cause it dawns on me now that in the block is seemingly adopting proportionality. unless he's really being sneaky about it, and just saying something that he think libertarians who accept proportionality can swallow............
February 17, 2003 is the timestamp on the article. I don't think he was being sneaky.
EDITED::
Block on evictionism, appalachian school of law 2005,:From these examples is derived the principle that when one evicts atrespasser, or deals with any other violator of rights, one is obliged to do soin a certain way; it must be done in the least invasive manner possibleconsistent with upholding property rights. If a trespasser is on your lawnand you have a bazooka, you are not entitled to blow him away - not as afirst step in any case. That is far too extreme and incompatible with thedoctrine of private property rights. The homeowner has the right to makesure that the outsider does not trespass further, but he must be evicted inthe gentlest manner possibleFebruary 17, 2003 Therefore, the only proper questions which can be addressed in this philosophy are of the sort, if the flagpole hanger attempts to come in to the apartment, and the occupant shoots him for trespassing, Would the forces of law and order punish the home owner? Or, if the owner of the cabin in the woods sets up a booby trap, such that when someone forces his way into his property he gets a face full of buckshot, Would he be guilty of a law violation? When put in this way, the answer is clear. The owner in each case is in the right, and the trespasser in the wrong. If force is used to protect property rights, even deadly force, the owner is not guilty of the violation of any licit law.
quite the quandry !
nirgrahamUK:EDITED:: Block on evictionism, appalachian school of law 2005,:From these examples is derived the principle that when one evicts atrespasser, or deals with any other violator of rights, one is obliged to do soin a certain way; it must be done in the least invasive manner possibleconsistent with upholding property rights. If a trespasser is on your lawnand you have a bazooka, you are not entitled to blow him away - not as afirst step in any case. That is far too extreme and incompatible with thedoctrine of private property rights. The homeowner has the right to makesure that the outsider does not trespass further, but he must be evicted inthe gentlest manner possibleFebruary 17, 2003 Therefore, the only proper questions which can be addressed in this philosophy are of the sort, if the flagpole hanger attempts to come in to the apartment, and the occupant shoots him for trespassing, Would the forces of law and order punish the home owner? Or, if the owner of the cabin in the woods sets up a booby trap, such that when someone forces his way into his property he gets a face full of buckshot, Would he be guilty of a law violation? When put in this way, the answer is clear. The owner in each case is in the right, and the trespasser in the wrong. If force is used to protect property rights, even deadly force, the owner is not guilty of the violation of any licit law. quite the quandry !
Nice find. I'll summarize as I understand it.
If you set something in place to prevent trespass, then you are in the right. If you deal with the trespass personally, you must do so in the "least invasive manner possible".
So, technological feasibility aside, I rig my entire property to send deadly electric shocks through anyone who steps onto my property and doesn't have my DNA footprint.
Nope. It's still opinion -- if it's dark in your home and you hear someone rummaging around in your living room and you shoot them, you're within your right to do so. You have to be. As soon as someone says, "Well you should at least call out and ask them to identify themselves! What if it's your mother?!" I say, "I've been burglarized twice this month and both times I asked them to identify themselves. Each time they bolted through the door with a valuable of mine. Screw asking, I'm shooting."
Case closed for me. Note, again, I'm not saying *I* would shoot a child frolicking in my flowers, but if someone did, they were within their right to do so. They may not be socially welcomed in their community, but that was their decision.
Daniel Waite: Bingo. BP seems to be ignoring/missing that facet of the scenario. Trespass is the initial aggression. Period.
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."
Juan: Daniel Waite: Bingo. BP seems to be ignoring/missing that facet of the scenario. Trespass is the initial aggression. Period. And shooting trespasser is murder. Period.
Agreed. Justified, but I agree, it's still murder.
Daniel Waite: If so, do you not understand that trespass is aggression, or are you ignoring that fact ?
Now, I'm going to push this as far as I can... Ready for this? Bob is a shop owner, open for business. You come into Bob's shop, you pick up items, place them on the counter and wait to hear what your total is. Bob decides your total amounts to a bullet between the eyes. Why? Bob arbitrarily decided to invoke the right to defend his property against trespass. Now what say you, BP? I know what I say, I'm NEVER shopping at Bob's store. Why? Well, on the chance he might off me. Is Bob a murderer? Not in my view, but I doubt he'll do well commercially.
Juan: Out of curiosity...Which asylum do you usually live in ? They let you use their internet connection, no ?
People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
nibbler491: As Rothbard put it, it's all about proportionality. When someone violates your rights, they forfeit their rights in proportion to how much they violated yours. If a child takes a quarter out of your wallet, he has not forfeited his life. Likewise, if someone wanders onto your property, he has not forfeited his life. He has only forfeited his life if he threatens yours. I assume it would be up to arbiters in a free society to determine if your life was actually threatened, and if it was not, you'd be forced to reparate.
As Rothbard put it, it's all about proportionality. When someone violates your rights, they forfeit their rights in proportion to how much they violated yours. If a child takes a quarter out of your wallet, he has not forfeited his life. Likewise, if someone wanders onto your property, he has not forfeited his life. He has only forfeited his life if he threatens yours. I assume it would be up to arbiters in a free society to determine if your life was actually threatened, and if it was not, you'd be forced to reparate.
LS:People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.