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)?
Juan: LS:Some jerk can't come stand on my lawn, and place the responsbility on me to nudge, push and cajole him off my property. So, how do you manage that ? You kill him in cold blood ?
LS:Some jerk can't come stand on my lawn, and place the responsbility on me to nudge, push and cajole him off my property.
How is it cold blood? Do I allow him to squat on my property indefinitely if he refuses to leave?
Besides, I'm an Ancap. My PDA would roll up in their assault vehicle, launch an electrified net over him, shock him into submission, then drag him off my property and dump him outside their jurisdiction.
Juan:The moment an aggressor trespasses, and is cognizant of that, he must stop trespassing, or he is violating my rights. Yes he is. But it doesn't follow you can use lethal force. I mean, you can, but it wouldn't be self-defense...
The moment an aggressor trespasses, and is cognizant of that, he must stop trespassing, or he is violating my rights.
It would be property defense.
Juan:There is no rationale for how or why he can place a positive right on me to manage his safety. Nice sophism. So, are you saying, just like Daniel Waite, that the moment a person sets foot on your house you can kill her ? But you know, the right to NOT getting killed is NOT a positive right.
There is no rationale for how or why he can place a positive right on me to manage his safety.
Yes. Exactly like Daniel Waite. Precisely like him. Without distinction. A carbon copy.
I can kill the trespasser, but I can't drink their blood. Not until I buy the corpse.
Juan:So you are using a...strawman ? Go figure.
No, I am talking to a strawman. Was it no brains or no heart? I can never remember.
We're off to see the wizard...
Juan:Daniel Waite's position is not crazy, but proportionality is ?
Who determines what is the correct proportion in the situation? Do you really think, for even a moment, that I am going to err on the side of concern for my trespasser over myself, if I think there is even the slightest chance that my trespasser is indeed trespassing because he means to do me or my property harm?
Juan:You seem to have lost the plot.
I make it up as I go. A MF'ing paperback writer.
Juan:I' m afraid that your crusade against left-libertarianism (whatever that is) sometimes clouds your judgment.
This isn't about left-libertarianism. It's about people jacking my stuff, and then you crying that I can't put a cap in their ass, or even something more mellow, because you think it's ok for people to mess with my stuff, and not have to fear significant reprisal.
Well, maybe you should get familiar with the idea of treble damages. You mess with my lawn, you lose 3 fingers. You touch my roses, you lose 3 toes. You step on my porch, you lose 3 family members. You come in my house, you lose this, the last and your next lifetimes, all hail Buddha, Hoo Rah.
I'm tired of the arbitrary subjectivism. Frankly, this whole discussion seems to me to be a cover for the proletariat to squat at his workplace, and not fear reprisal, as he homesteads his tools away from the dirty bourgeois capitalist pig who owns the factory. Well I got news for you. We got guns. And we gunna use them. You marxist wankers step inside this plant, you'll be full of lead.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
LS: J: You seem to have lost the plot. I make it up as I go.
J: You seem to have lost the plot.
You mess with my lawn, you lose 3 fingers.
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."
The difference is in 1) trust, 2) invitation, and 3) knowledge.
In your first situation, there would realistically be a lot of unknowns. Realistically speaking, you would not know if they've been lost for days and you probably would be under so much stress that even if it were obvious that they were on the verge of dying, it probably wouldn't even register. Most people would be freaking out. They would be (quite reasonably) scared. They would be feeling hurt because of their home being violated. Anyone who's ever had someone even try to enter their home uninvited knows it's a little bit of a blow...this is your "safe zone" and suddenly it's just not so safe anymore. Yes, if the guy is obviously on the verge of dying, then shooting him would be wrong (unless it would be a piece of mercy due to disease, wounds, whatever). However, usually if a person is at the point of starvation where they are obviously on the verge of dying, then they aren't even going to be shuffling anymore at that point. The fact of this matter is that suddenly, someone is in your kitchen going through your things. They have violated your safe zone, and made the place you psychologically associate with shelter, warmth, and safety no longer safe. You don't know why they are there or who they are. For all you know they could be looking for a knife with which to kill you and your family, or they could be looking to bring you tea and biscuits. You just don't know, and you have to act not on a situation of knowledge, but on the lack of it. You have to act to defend yourself and your family first, and you must act quickly. If the guy complies with you, and you restrain him, clear the rest of the cabin and then learn that he's just looking for food, then you can feed him and it would definitely be wrong to shoot him. If the guy tries to run away, you let him run and call your security provider to let them sort it out. If the guy doesn't comply or comes at you, though, then bang. After all, realistically what choice do you have. Hypotheticals like this sound wonderful on paper where you can know everything, see with 20/20 foresight, and play a wonderful armchair judge. But, in real life - where fractions of a second count, your family's life may be on the line, you are under an extreme amount of stress (probably more than you've ever been under in your life unless you've been in a high-speed collision), and you don't know who this person is or why they are there - it is a totally different matter. In that situation you can't afford a divided mind. You have to be alert, but focused, and you have to act quickly. The only other option is to surrender and place yourself at the mercy of the invader.
In the latter situation, you have first defined the other person as a friend. They are already in a situation of mutual trust. This friend has, by accepting your invitation, essentially placed his life in your hands, trusting you not to violate that trust. Furthermore, you know who the person is and why they are there. You know that this person is your friend, and they're there because you invited them.
That is the difference. In the former case, although driven by desparation, the person has still violated your safe zone. The indivdiual is someone you do not know, do not trust, and have not invited into your home. You have no clue if they are really there for food, or if they are intent on harming you or youf family. In the other case, it is someone that you know, trust, and have invited into your home. You know why they are there, and you know that they have no intent to harm you or your family. The two situations are - realistically speaking - so radically different that to compare them seems to me to be an inroad for disaster.
Daniel Waite:Petty ownership? I must be mistaken again then, because I thought property rights were paramount in all of this.
Err, the ownership of foodstuffs and single denominations of currency is largely considered "petty".
Daniel Waite:Let's talk about that coin. Say the coin was a gift from your now-deceased father. Additionally, it's pure gold and worth quite a sum of money, though you probably couldn't tell just by looking at it.
Loss of physical property does not mean you can violate the life of another, no matter how precious that property is to you. Unless the agressor has endangered your life, lethal action is illigitimate. The right to life must supercede all other rights for the right of ownership to even be meaningful.
GilesStratton: GilesStratton: Brainpolice:As for your question, you'd be justified only if it becomes necessary. But it is not always necessary. Ok, let me change the example. Let's say you're staying a year in a hotel room in downtown Freetown. Your room is on the end of the hallway, and for the past ten days the rooms in that hall have been broken into and the people inside the room killed, yours is the only room left in the corridor. You have a gun under your pillow and you hear somebody breaking into your room. Can you shoot? I have another question but first I'd like to clarify something. You agree the many on the flag pole has the right to break the window, correct? On the grounds that he needs to do that otherwise he would die. Point out the errors if they exist, I really am curious. BP, answer this.
GilesStratton: Brainpolice:As for your question, you'd be justified only if it becomes necessary. But it is not always necessary. Ok, let me change the example. Let's say you're staying a year in a hotel room in downtown Freetown. Your room is on the end of the hallway, and for the past ten days the rooms in that hall have been broken into and the people inside the room killed, yours is the only room left in the corridor. You have a gun under your pillow and you hear somebody breaking into your room. Can you shoot? I have another question but first I'd like to clarify something. You agree the many on the flag pole has the right to break the window, correct? On the grounds that he needs to do that otherwise he would die. Point out the errors if they exist, I really am curious.
Brainpolice:As for your question, you'd be justified only if it becomes necessary. But it is not always necessary.
Ok, let me change the example. Let's say you're staying a year in a hotel room in downtown Freetown. Your room is on the end of the hallway, and for the past ten days the rooms in that hall have been broken into and the people inside the room killed, yours is the only room left in the corridor. You have a gun under your pillow and you hear somebody breaking into your room.
Can you shoot?
I have another question but first I'd like to clarify something. You agree the many on the flag pole has the right to break the window, correct? On the grounds that he needs to do that otherwise he would die.
Point out the errors if they exist, I really am curious.
BP, answer this.
Brainpolice, stop the intellectual dishonesty and answer my question. Or at least, admit you can't.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
liberty student: Juan: LS:Some jerk can't come stand on my lawn, and place the responsbility on me to nudge, push and cajole him off my property. So, how do you manage that ? You kill him in cold blood ? How is it cold blood? Do I allow him to squat on my property indefinitely if he refuses to leave? Besides, I'm an Ancap. My PDA would roll up in their assault vehicle, launch an electrified net over him, shock him into submission, then drag him off my property and dump him outside their jurisdiction. Juan:The moment an aggressor trespasses, and is cognizant of that, he must stop trespassing, or he is violating my rights. Yes he is. But it doesn't follow you can use lethal force. I mean, you can, but it wouldn't be self-defense... It would be property defense. Juan:There is no rationale for how or why he can place a positive right on me to manage his safety. Nice sophism. So, are you saying, just like Daniel Waite, that the moment a person sets foot on your house you can kill her ? But you know, the right to NOT getting killed is NOT a positive right. Yes. Exactly like Daniel Waite. Precisely like him. Without distinction. A carbon copy. I can kill the trespasser, but I can't drink their blood. Not until I buy the corpse. Juan:So you are using a...strawman ? Go figure. No, I am talking to a strawman. Was it no brains or no heart? I can never remember. We're off to see the wizard... Juan:Daniel Waite's position is not crazy, but proportionality is ? Who determines what is the correct proportion in the situation? Do you really think, for even a moment, that I am going to err on the side of concern for my trespasser over myself, if I think there is even the slightest chance that my trespasser is indeed trespassing because he means to do me or my property harm? Juan:You seem to have lost the plot. I make it up as I go. A MF'ing paperback writer. Juan:I' m afraid that your crusade against left-libertarianism (whatever that is) sometimes clouds your judgment. This isn't about left-libertarianism. It's about people jacking my stuff, and then you crying that I can't put a cap in their ass, or even something more mellow, because you think it's ok for people to mess with my stuff, and not have to fear significant reprisal. Well, maybe you should get familiar with the idea of treble damages. You mess with my lawn, you lose 3 fingers. You touch my roses, you lose 3 toes. You step on my porch, you lose 3 family members. You come in my house, you lose this, the last and your next lifetimes, all hail Buddha, Hoo Rah. I'm tired of the arbitrary subjectivism. Frankly, this whole discussion seems to me to be a cover for the proletariat to squat at his workplace, and not fear reprisal, as he homesteads his tools away from the dirty bourgeois capitalist pig who owns the factory. Well I got news for you. We got guns. And we gunna use them. You marxist wankers step inside this plant, you'll be full of lead.
This wins the topic.
GilesStratton:Brainpolice, stop the intellectual dishonesty and answer my question. Or at least, admit you can't.
There is no reason to involve personal attacks against members in the discussions.
Charles Anthony: GilesStratton:Brainpolice, stop the intellectual dishonesty and answer my question. Or at least, admit you can't. Stop trolling. There is no reason to involve personal attacks against members in the discussions.
Well given BP's preponderance to not answer certain questions or actually comment as to whether he'd engage Giles in a one-on-one debate which he has been challenged to on numerous occasions I think the senitment expressed is justifiable.
The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.
Yours sincerely,
Physiocrat
GilesStratton: Let's be honest now: you're in your cabin in the middle of the woods at night, with a gun under your pillow, and you hear somebody breaking in. How many of you would really hesitate before blowing this individual's brains out?
Let's be honest now: you're in your cabin in the middle of the woods at night, with a gun under your pillow, and you hear somebody breaking in. How many of you would really hesitate before blowing this individual's brains out?
I would give him the benefit of the doubt and arrest him before I shoot him. If I shoot someone who was there in error, then I myself will become guilty of violating his property rights and that will become a costly mistake.
Microsecession as a strategy for revolution | Challenge to minarchist | How would a private road system work?
Stranger: GilesStratton: Let's be honest now: you're in your cabin in the middle of the woods at night, with a gun under your pillow, and you hear somebody breaking in. How many of you would really hesitate before blowing this individual's brains out? I would give him the benefit of the doubt and arrest him before I shoot him. If I shoot someone who was there in error, then I myself will become guilty of violating his property rights and that will become a costly mistake.
And a horrible mess to clean up.
Brainpolice: i need you to explain to me , WHY.? this is what im struggling with to understand your position. i recommend maybe a paragraph starting "Because", or "if. "etc. these would help build your case, which i am very eager to hear. (admittedly its bad form to start with a proposition). ((bad joke)) Because, otherwise, the power of an individual to shoot someone on their property is completely arbitrary, and this begs the question of the application and context of the NAP. If there are zero qualifiers to the use of force on my property, then I could assault and murder whoever I want just on the basis that it's my property that I assaulted and murdered them on. The fact that you have property doesn't make other people's personal sovereignty and right to life suddenly become irrelevant. So the point is, how can one take such an absolutist position on violence in defense of property without undermining libertarian principles and risking an inconsistancy in the application of the NAP?
i need you to explain to me , WHY.? this is what im struggling with to understand your position. i recommend maybe a paragraph starting "Because", or "if. "etc. these would help build your case, which i am very eager to hear. (admittedly its bad form to start with a proposition). ((bad joke))
Because, otherwise, the power of an individual to shoot someone on their property is completely arbitrary, and this begs the question of the application and context of the NAP. If there are zero qualifiers to the use of force on my property, then I could assault and murder whoever I want just on the basis that it's my property that I assaulted and murdered them on. The fact that you have property doesn't make other people's personal sovereignty and right to life suddenly become irrelevant. So the point is, how can one take such an absolutist position on violence in defense of property without undermining libertarian principles and risking an inconsistancy in the application of the NAP?
im somewhat dissapointed by Brainpolices lack of elequence at explaining to me why responding to 'intiated aggression' with superior force is wrong.
It would seem a sensible tack that brainpolice has overlooked is simply to explain that standing on a lawn even when uninvited is not necessarily trespass.
as in that case there would be no initiation of aggression to respond to.
perhaps this is an established libertarian position as a recent search on mises.org turned up an article
N. STEPHAN KINSELLA AND PATRICK TINSLEYPRAXEOLOGY AND LEGAL ANALYSIS: ACTION VS. BEHAVIORFor libertarians, the purpose of a legal system is to establish and enforcerules that facilitate and support peaceful, conflict-free interactionbetween individuals. In short, the law should prohibit aggression.Because aggression is a particular kind of human action—action that intentionallyviolates or threatens to violate the physical integrity of another personor another person’s property without that person’s consent—it can be successfully
prohibited only if the law is based on a sound understanding of the
nature of human action more generally.
this defines aggression so as to be intentional. hence a trespasser who tresspasses intentionally might warrant one response where as one that doesnt another.
problematically though, this opens up knowledge problems. and also whether that could be such a crime as negligence? for example over liability for keeping the goods in ones care safe.. etc. or being careless and driving ones car through someones house
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
I've explained to you ad nauseum that it is YOU who is initiating force in the scenario, and that the use of force against someone's body is NOT even remotely proportional to a "use of force" involved in simply being on someone else's property. Merely being on someone else's property, even if it does constitute tresspassing, is NOT an "initiation of force". Tresspassing is NOT equivolent to aggression against YOU as a person, and your aggression against a tresspasser is generally not necessary unless they actually persistantly refuse to leave or present a threat to your life. Without this context of escalation, you're simply the initiator of force in the scenario. A policy of "shoot first, ask questions later" completely disregaurds context and just assumes the legitimacy of using force as a first option.
I'm not disputing if it's tresspass or not, I'm disputing if the act of tresspass, by itself, divorced from the context of escalation and a refusal to leave, does not justify arbitrary violence on the part of an owner. Shooting someone for tressassing, when there is no real threat to your life or escalated conditions that have been established, is simply cruel and unusual punishment that is blatantly out of proportion.
Brainpolice:I've explained to you ad nauseum that it is YOU who is initiating force in the scenario, and that the use of force against someone's body is NOT even remotely proportional to a "use of force" involved in simply being on someone else's property.
i know it must be exhausting for you, but it keeps coming up because you are talking over me. you are 'asserting' not explaining.
you assert that when a property owner applies any more aggression than a trespasser has initiated, then the descriptive label 'Initiator of Aggression' cross over from the body of the trespasser to sit comfortably on the forehead of the landlord.
you are probably nodding at this point..
if we consider a pickpocket thief who brushing past a gentleman, with quick fingers takes the wallet, and walks on. The gentleman has a momentary doubt, and patting his pockets determines that he has ben fleeced. his 50$ and picture of his wife and kids is heading up the road with that man who had brushed past him on this otherwise empty street mere moments ago. the gentleman turns t follow the thief, he begins to run, the theif hearing the quickining footsteps breaks into a run. yet the gentleman is more athletic than the thief, he tackles him to the ground. overpowers him. takes his wallet. goes home .
financially the debt is squared away. private property has been restituted. but the pickpocket had used minimal 'force' and the gentleman brutally knocked the thief to the floor bruising him. whilst neither theif nor gentleman have financially more or less than they started with. the one is injured the other not. clearly the gentleman has initiated aggression. he is the Greater Trespasser.
Charles Anthony: GilesStratton:Brainpolice, stop the intellectual dishonesty and answer my question. Or at least, admit you can't. Stop trolling.
This whole debate is a joke, BP is selectively answering what he thinks he can give a somewhat sound answer to and leaving the rest.
nirgrahamUK: Brainpolice: i need you to explain to me , WHY.? this is what im struggling with to understand your position. i recommend maybe a paragraph starting "Because", or "if. "etc. these would help build your case, which i am very eager to hear. (admittedly its bad form to start with a proposition). ((bad joke)) Because, otherwise, the power of an individual to shoot someone on their property is completely arbitrary, and this begs the question of the application and context of the NAP. If there are zero qualifiers to the use of force on my property, then I could assault and murder whoever I want just on the basis that it's my property that I assaulted and murdered them on. The fact that you have property doesn't make other people's personal sovereignty and right to life suddenly become irrelevant. So the point is, how can one take such an absolutist position on violence in defense of property without undermining libertarian principles and risking an inconsistancy in the application of the NAP? im somewhat dissapointed by Brainpolices lack of elequence at explaining to me why responding to 'intiated aggression' with superior force is wrong. It would seem a sensible tack that brainpolice has overlooked is simply to explain that standing on a lawn even when uninvited is not necessarily trespass. as in that case there would be no initiation of aggression to respond to. perhaps this is an established libertarian position as a recent search on mises.org turned up an article N. STEPHAN KINSELLA AND PATRICK TINSLEYPRAXEOLOGY AND LEGAL ANALYSIS: ACTION VS. BEHAVIORFor libertarians, the purpose of a legal system is to establish and enforcerules that facilitate and support peaceful, conflict-free interactionbetween individuals. In short, the law should prohibit aggression.Because aggression is a particular kind of human action—action that intentionallyviolates or threatens to violate the physical integrity of another personor another person’s property without that person’s consent—it can be successfully prohibited only if the law is based on a sound understanding of the nature of human action more generally. this defines aggression so as to be intentional. hence a trespasser who tresspasses intentionally might warrant one response where as one that doesnt another. problematically though, this opens up knowledge problems. and also whether that could be such a crime as negligence? for example over liability for keeping the goods in ones care safe.. etc. or being careless and driving ones car through someones house
To be completely honest, proportionality in self-defense or defense of property is what Block would call a "continuum problem". Its not something that can be specified a priori, as it relies on the context of the situation and the broader social and cultural environment. Its something that would have to be decided, on a case-by-case basis, by a free market court.
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap