JonBostwick: If a punch in the face is enough to end a mugging, you are obligated to choose that route and not shooting the mugger.
If a punch in the face is enough to end a mugging, you are obligated to choose that route and not shooting the mugger.
"Obligated"? When threatened with force, it is impossible to know beforehand how much force is going to be used against you. That's why shooting someone who broke into your house is considered justifiable, even if they were unarmed.
If a 10 year old with a BB gun tries to mug me, I would be a criminal to shoot him dead. As I could very easily neutralize the threat with less force.
If, and only if, I knew already it was a BB gun and a 10-year old. To assume either incorrectly could easily get me killed.
CurtHowland:If, and only if, I knew already it was a BB gun and a 10-year old. To assume either incorrectly could easily get me killed.
I already addressed this. Just because I don't always know exactly how much force is neccesary does not mean that its okay for me to use an amount of force that I know to be excessive.
JonBostwick:Now there is a great amount of uncertainty about what amount of force is actually sufficient to the end the threat without putting yourself in danger, so the victim has a great amount of leeway in the amount of force he uses. But that does not invalidity the rule of reciprocity.
To those who believe that there should be no limit whatsoever in defending your person and property, I have the following question:
If someone steps on your toe, it is morally legitimate to shoot them in the head?
JonBostwick: If a punch in the face is enough to end a mugging, you are obligated to choose that route and not shooting the mugger. If a 10 year old with a BB gun tries to mug me, I would be a criminal to shoot him dead. As I could very easily neutralize the threat with less force.
Why? I literally don't see the reason you would be a "criminal" for that. This has nothing at all to do with justice or morality; it is purely a matter of how far you are willing to go to defend your person and property from invasion and harm. Where does this "obligation" to act mercifully toward criminals come from? Now, I don't want to misrepresent what I am saying; it's not that I advocate using deadly force against a 10 year-old mugger with a BB gun, but I am saying that someone may find that an effective and logical way to defend their property, given it's deterrent effects. Personally, I would feel repulsed if someone did that, but my emotional repulsion doesn't mean anything to anyone else and is totally irrelevant to the question.
I suspect insurance companies in a market society would likely stipulate that their clients must contractually agree not to use more force than is plainly necessary to defend themselves, in order to avoid unnecessary conflicts with other agencies. However, in the context of statism, that which is "permissible" is that which attains the ends you desire.
"Nolite confidere in principibus"
~ Psalm 146:3
Morty: To those who believe that there should be no limit whatsoever in defending your person and property, I have the following question: If someone steps on your toe, it is morally legitimate to shoot them in the head?
Stepping on a toe is usually an accident, not malicious. If deliberate it is often intended as "ornery" and again, not truly malicious.
Educational Pamphlet Mises Group
http://mises.org/Community/groups/educational_pamphlets/default.aspx
It may be a bad idea, as people would likely not want to associate with you and you may be denied insurance except upon the payment of extremely high premiums. Perhaps no one would defend you and you would be thrown in prison, beaten, humiliated, or executed. Any number of bad things might happen to you without morality ever entering into the equation. Another question, one that I always ask: Will shooting this person in the head achieve the ends you desire with as little resistance as possible? I submit that it is much more trouble than it is worth, and is not necessary for achieving one's ends. Again, though, it is simply cause and effect; morality has nothing to do with it.
Taylor:Why? I literally don't see the reason you would be a "criminal" for that.
The idea you are proposing is that once a person breaks the law, in any way, they become below the law. That is not a idea that I accept.
If applied consistently it would negate the law entirely. The law would cease to mediate between individuals, any action of aggression could be justified as on the grounds of retaliation for some vague previous aggression.
JonBostwick: The idea you are proposing is that once a person breaks the law, in any way, they become below the law. That is not a idea that I accept. If applied consistently it would negate the law entirely. The law would cease to mediate between individuals, any action of aggression could be justified as on the grounds of retaliation for some vague previous aggression.
Like I said before, I predict the contractual workings of market arbitration and insurance will effectively guarantee that "excessive" force only rarely be used. My point is just that it is meaningless to make moral judgements on what people do to defend themselves. I see no reason for such judgements and they don't appear to be based on anything but consequential assertions.
I'm not "justifying" aggression. I don't think one should be allowed to attack anybody just because there was some previous aggression. I haven't been defending anything, really, and I certainly haven't been defending the idea of vengeance. I'm saying there is no moral difference between differing levels of force used in self-defense, provided only the attacker is harmed; it's not as if I'm saying you should, having incapacitated your enemy however you chose to in self-defense, go on to torture him as "punishment". That is a different matter altogether.
It depends. If someone accidentally steps on your toe, it was not intentional and will no longer be in commission by the time you can respond. However, if someone runs up to you and starts stomping on your foot, I think it would be alright to shoot at him because you don't know how far he will go in his ongoing commission of aggression. I mean, I agree with Rothbard that you should be able to use whatever force to get your watch back, so why not do the same for a part of one's body, one's right in oneself being the prerequisite for other property?
So, the act of aggression must be intentional (and malicious) to allow for the infinite-use-of-defensive-force doctrine (in you all's opinion)?
Parsidius:If someone accidentally steps on your toe, it was not intentional and will no longer be in commission by the time you can respond.
Assume you can respond in time. Would killing the aggressor be legitimate?
Morty: So, the act of aggression must be intentional (and malicious) to allow for the infinite-use-of-defensive-force doctrine (in you all's opinion)? Parsidius:If someone accidentally steps on your toe, it was not intentional and will no longer be in commission by the time you can respond. Assume you can respond in time. Would killing the aggressor be legitimate?
No, I don't think so, because he is not intending to do so and as such is not really an aggressor.
Morty: So, the act of aggression must be intentional (and malicious) to allow for the infinite-use-of-defensive-force doctrine (in you all's opinion)?
I believe we all agree that killing an innocent person is wrong.
But rather than trying to thrash this out "in principle", let's look at reality. Lethal self-defense happens, so how often does an "innocent" person get shot?
Exceptionally rarely. There is little doubt to the victim who the rapist is, who the thug is, who the thief is, who the aggressor is. The police shoot innocent people by mistake an order of magnitude more often than the rest of us who carry guns.
This is something that has been thrashed out by the gun advocate / gun control crowd so many times it's almost funny.
Remnant: If Taxation is Theft, how much force may one morally use to defend oneself against the tax man?
If Taxation is Theft, how much force may one morally use to defend oneself against the tax man?
The problem is that defending yourself violently is impractical. You might be able to achieve stalemate in a 5 on 1 or 20 on 4 confrontation. However, the State has the ability to send 10,000 troops at you while the rest of the cattle pay for the cost of their salary. Even if you had a self-sufficient arrangement, you can only hold out for so long (i.e. Ed and Elaine Brown).
It's morally acceptable to violently defend yourself against terrorists wearing badges and uniforms, but it's not practical. By the time it becomes practical, the State will have already been defeated.
I have my own blog at FSK's Guide to Reality. Let me know if you like it.
fsk: It's morally acceptable to violently defend yourself against terrorists wearing badges and uniforms, but it's not practical. By the time it becomes practical, the State will have already been defeated.
Never attack from a position of weakness. You will be defeated. You must first place your opponent in a position of weakness such that he cannot attack you.
I think Sun Tzu said that or somesuch.
Minarchism failed because it is socialism || A challenge to minarchists || Private roads and cities || A two-stage strategy for freedom
Only because others have gone before. I'm left to wonder if this subject can be discussed _at_all_ in the present political environment. After all, anyone that might be interested might also be interested in selling this information to the bottomless pockets of Big Mommy Government.
However, it is being discussed: http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2008/tle477-20080720-06.html
Personally, and this is just opinion (got that any fed.gov types that read this?), if the shooting part of this war for independence ever starts, I'm going to be releaved just because the waiting is over. I had hopes that Waco would be the turning point, but no.
Stranger: Never attack from a position of weakness. You will be defeated. You must first place your opponent in a position of weakness such that he cannot attack you. I think Sun Tzu said that or somesuch.
Don't bother to attack the soldiers. Soldiers are just fodder, there are 10,000 more where they came from.
If the shooting starts, start at the top, or at least at the highest point possible. Politicians, police chiefs, IRS division heads, etc.
There are lots of good reasons, but the most important reason is that there are only so many leaders. Remove the leaders, the soldiers get very, very disorganized. The higher up the chain of command, the fewer the targets.
One of my favorite movies is Mel Gibson's _The Patriot_. "Can you recognize the officers? Shoot them first."