Libertarianism and shooting intruders

Ego:

How on earth are you supposed to know the intruder is unarmed? If they are naked?

My claim is simple - shooting an unarmed person is a criminal act. You're supposed to address that, not to change the subject.

Mark B.:

The doctrine of proportionality does not apply to self defense

Says who ?

Ego:

Juan:

Killing or even shooting an unarmed intruder sounds to me like a criminal act itself. It is not proportional at all.

How on earth are you supposed to know the intruder is unarmed? If they are naked?

What if a large naked man breaks into the home of a weak old woman? Will you make her fight back with her fists?

She can use any weapon she wants to arrest him, but she can't simply kill him on sight unless he has threatened her life. What if the man is only a drunk?

Juan:

Ego:

How on earth are you supposed to know the intruder is unarmed? If they are naked?

My claim is simple - shooting an unarmed person is a criminal act. You're supposed to address that, not to change the subject.

 

In many cases, using a firearm is the only way a weaker victim is able to defend his/herself against a stronger aggressor. There is nothing criminal about it whatsoever.

If you are the kind of tyrant who would prosecute an old woman for using a firearm in self defense against a physically fit male intruder, you belong at DemocraticUnderground.com.

What about rape victims? If an unarmed naked man is trying to rape a woman, would you want to prosecute her if she shot him? What kind of person are you?

 

 

Ego:

In many cases, using a firearm is the only way a weaker victim is able to defend his/herself against a stronger aggressor. There is nothing criminal about it whatsoever.

If you are the kind of tyrant who would prosecute an old woman for using a firearm in self defense against a physically fit male intruder, you belong at DemocraticUnderground.com.

What about rape victims? If an unarmed naked man is trying to rape a woman, would you want to prosecute her if she shot him? What kind of person are you?

 

 There's no need to resort to ad hominems.  In The Ethics of Liberty, Rothbard addresses a tangential point - the treatment of suspects by the police.  He actually allows for all manner of torture, but only if the person turns out to be guilty.  That is, the cop can do what he wants to the person in custody, but with the understanding that if the person turns out to be innocent, the cop can be prosecuted.  It seems that all your concerns about the lack of knowledge apply here too, so if Juan's, and my, reasoning is mistaken, then so is Rothbard's. 

We have been told, again and again, that proportionality does not apply to self-defense, but we have yet to see a defense of why proportionality does not apply to self-defense.  In its place, we've seen all manner of consequentialist and utilitarian defenses, which I think we can all agree do not answer the question.

Of course the doctrine of proportionality applies to self defense.  I don't think anyone would argue that it's justified to shoot someone for walking across your lawn on the way to the neighbor's house.

The question is, of the range of options available to the defender, which can justly be employed in a given situation.

And yes, this can depend to some degree on the mental state of the defender - especially from a moral perspective, maybe less so from a legal one.

 

Ego,

I love name calling and such. You said someplace else that socialist anti-war protesters should be jailed - that hardly adds to your libertarian credentials.

The title of this thread is clear - shooting intruders. You can argue that it's OK to kill somebody who is trying to kill you - I have no problem with that and I'd call it self-defense. Now, the idea that it's libertarian to kill any intruders is in my not so humbly opinion, nonsense.

JAlanKatz:

Ego:

In many cases, using a firearm is the only way a weaker victim is able to defend his/herself against a stronger aggressor. There is nothing criminal about it whatsoever.

If you are the kind of tyrant who would prosecute an old woman for using a firearm in self defense against a physically fit male intruder, you belong at DemocraticUnderground.com.

What about rape victims? If an unarmed naked man is trying to rape a woman, would you want to prosecute her if she shot him? What kind of person are you?

 

 There's no need to resort to ad hominems.  In The Ethics of Liberty, Rothbard addresses a tangential point - the treatment of suspects by the police.  He actually allows for all manner of torture, but only if the person turns out to be guilty.  That is, the cop can do what he wants to the person in custody, but with the understanding that if the person turns out to be innocent, the cop can be prosecuted.  It seems that all your concerns about the lack of knowledge apply here too, so if Juan's, and my, reasoning is mistaken, then so is Rothbard's. 

We have been told, again and again, that proportionality does not apply to self-defense, but we have yet to see a defense of why proportionality does not apply to self-defense.  In its place, we've seen all manner of consequentialist and utilitarian defenses, which I think we can all agree do not answer the question.

He was insulting, condescending, and anti-victim, so I called him a leftist tyrant. No biggie.

I have explained why punishing victims for defending themselves is evil. There is nothing wrong with being "utilitarian" about defending rights. Tell me, what would do you want to happen if a weak old woman shot a physically intimidating unarmed intruder? Punish her? What about my rape example? Would you punish the victims, too?

Juan:

Ego,

I love name calling and such. You said someplace else that socialist anti-war protesters should be jailed - that hardly adds to your libertarian credentials.

The title of this thread is clear - shooting intruders. You can argue that it's OK to kill somebody who is trying to kill you - I have no problem with that and I'd call it self-defense. Now, the idea that it's libertarian to kill any intruders is in my not so humbly opinion, nonsense.

Please, please, please don't make things up out of thin air. Thanks, it's really misleading!

Here is the post:

Ego:

JonBostwick:

Ego:

Good question. To be honest, I really wouldn't mind if we went to an anti-war rally and jailed every single person waving a Socialist Worker sign. On the other hand, we're never going to accomplish anything if we have that attitude!

 

 

So the people who are against the state murdering people should be jailed?

I say we shoot anyone who advocates using (state) violence against non-violence protesters. Sorry, ego, nothing personal.

 

No, we don't round up everyone there, just the socialists holding the Socialist Worker signs!

 

 And could you address the two examples outlined in my response to you? What would you do?

Juan:

Killing or even shooting an unarmed intruder sounds to me like a criminal act itself. It is not proportional at all.

Not if the intruder is a strangler. Proportionality does not equate to playing fair.

Edited.

 

Ego:

He was insulting, condescending, and anti-victim

Excuse me ?

And could you address the two examples outlined in my response to you?

What I said was concise and clear. Shooting intruders is not self-defense. If you can't address such a claim, fine. It may suggest that you need to reconsider your position.

Jon:

Not if the intruder is a strangler. Proportionality does equate to playing fair.

Do you read what I write ? I already said

"You can argue that it's OK to kill somebody who is trying to kill you - I have no problem with that and I'd call it self-defense. "

Ego:

I have explained why punishing victims for defending themselves is evil. There is nothing wrong with being "utilitarian" about defending rights. Tell me, what would do you want to happen if a weak old woman shot a physically intimidating unarmed intruder? Punish her? What about my rape example? Would you punish the victims, too?

 

The problem is being utilitarian in determing whether or not a rights violation has occurred.  Your argument, including the rape case, boil down to consequences.  If we're going to be consequentialist about it, then, I should point out that your criteria make it very difficult to prosecute any murderer at all.  The person accused of murder would need only to establish that they had a subjective feeling of threat - and how exactly could the prosecution disprove this claim?

No one, as far as I know, would disagree with you that "punishing victims for defending themselves" is evil.  The question is just what are the bounds of self-defense.  Specifically, I didn't disagree with you all that much on the legal question, certainly in the case of an intruder.  I support the Castle Principle, which gives the legal benefit of the doubt to the homeowner.  Having agreed, at least in obvious cases, on the legal question, the moral question remains open, and relevant.  The law needs to be, in a sense, algorithmic - it needs to come up with answers in every case, and in cases where it's unclear, we need to know ahead of time which way it will lean.  Morality doesn't have this pressing nature, and allows for, in my opinion, more fruitful discussions.  Having established that the homeowner shouldn't be punished for his action, it still remains a question as to whether or not he acted correctly, whether or not his act was just, and what he should do.

FYI, as I discussed on other threads, I am not an Objectivist, and one of my strongest points of disagreement with Objectivism is the moral value assigned to life.  I simply don't think that protecting my life outweighs other moral concerns - and I think most people can be pushed to a point where they agree, as well.  Demonstrating that adherence to what I claimed as a moral conduct would lead to death will not dissuade me.

JAlanKatz:

The law needs to be, in a sense, algorithmic - it needs to come up with answers in every case, and in cases where it's unclear, we need to know ahead of time which way it will lean.

That is impossible.  There are an infinite number of situations that would need to be accounted for.  A legal code cannot specify exactly what is legal and illegal in every conceivable situation.  In fact, the attempt to do so would result in less justice, not more.

The purpose of a legal code is to establish the general principles of justice.  The application of those principles to any specific case must be done by human beings - juries, judges, arbitrators, etc.

I agree with the rest of your post though.

JAlanKatz:

We have been told, again and again, that proportionality does not apply to self-defense, but we have yet to see a defense of why proportionality does not apply to self-defense.  In its place, we've seen all manner of consequentialist and utilitarian defenses, which I think we can all agree do not answer the question.

 

Let me tackle that.

Proportionality always applies, but actions during a crime and actions after a crime have different relations to the same crime, because of the factor of time.

If Joe is trespassing, I can use physical force to remove him and end the trespass. However, If I found out that Joe has previously trespassed I can not find him and batter him. My compensation would be financial only.

I'd say that deadly force is proportional during the commission of a murder, but never as an after the fact punishment.

 

JonBostwick:

If Joe is trespassing, I can use physical force to remove him and end the trespass. However, If I found out that Joe has previously trespassed I can not find him and batter him. My compensation would be financial only.

I'd say that deadly force is proportional during the commission of a murder, but never as an after the fact punishment.

 

 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.

JAlanKatz:

 Then it seems you are not arguing that proportionality doesn't apply to defense

JonBostwick:

Proportionality always applies

JAlanKatz:

In any case, though, I fail to see just how you can see death as proportionate to trespass.

I did not intend to prove that it is.

Proportionality requires the response you give to an intruder in your front yard be different than to one in your bedroom.

Probability must play into this, and the benefit of doubt must fall towards the inhabitant. Its kind of like being robbed by someone with an unloaded gun. If someone threatens you with a gun, the assumption is that it is loaded. If we find out later the gun was empty that does not change how we look at the crime, or invalidate any attempt towards self defense.