What's your views on this subject? I, personally, would have no problem shooting someone in the back of the legs if they, for instance, were fleeing from my home after I had interrupted a robbery.
Today my friend came home to two robbers. They had attacked his dog, and apparently were attempting to steal a TV when he entered. When he saw them, they fled out the door that they had broken down. He got out a handgun and pursued them. When he approached them, they were in their car. He pointed his weapon and told them to get out. One got out and layed on the ground, the other got out and ran. He did not pursue or shoot at the fleeing criminal, which I think was a fine judgment call for him to make. Of course he then called the police. I, personally though, would have fired at the fleeing criminal in an attempt to prevent their escape. What are your thoughts on this? In my opinion, they are still a threat and are still in a state of having surrendered their rights because, by fleeing, they are still engaged in linked criminal activity. That's just my opinion. Yours?
I, of course, cannot be in this situation, because my family is not as safety minded. My mom claims to be a Libertarian or whatever, but doesn't want loaded guns in the house? She speaks libertarian, but doesn't practice it, so in my opinion, she is not. I would be almost defenseless in a home break-in situation, and it INFURIATES me. To the point, that if someone did break in, I'd be to the point that it didn't matter if I had a firearm or not, the robbers would be in grave danger......
Righteous government, or the righteous lack thereof, is not the producer of a righteous society, it is the product of one.
You can't have my guns, but I'd be glad to give you my bullets...
Okay, I honestly think you need to chill out a bit about your mom. I know this advice may be unwelcome, so if so, please just remember that I'm some idiot on the Internet, and ignore me. :)
First of all, you do the libertarian movement no good by fighting with your mother. It just looks bad. Dude, respect your momma!
Second of all, as a libertarian you should believe in property rights first and foremost. Her home, her rules. You don't like it, emancipate yourself. This is seriously important, and goes beyond just parental/child relations. You are living in her house. If you don't want to live in a gun free zone, don't live there, or at the very least, stick to respectful, peaceful persuasion to try to change the property owner's mind. I have to say that obviously you believe the benefits of living there outweigh the cons. Of course, those benefits may be that you are young enough you don't have any other choice and would face serious consequences if you left. But it's the truth: right now, you've obviously judged that living in a gun free zone is your preference.
Finally, libertarian views on the subject of guns is not "pro gun," per se. It's pro gun rights. Really, it's pro property rights. We believe that everyone should be permitted to make their own decisions about property, including what guns they will or will not own or use, provided they do not infringe on anyone else's rights. That means if somebody wants their property to be a gun free zone, that's their choice. They will probably be outcompeted by the market. :) But the market will make that decision; it's not one that a central planner could make. (i.e., everybody should host guns on their property, which seems to be your position).
And really, there are a range of libertarian opinions about violence and self-defense. The core on which we all agree (or else we would not be libertarians), is the non-aggression principle: we do not initiate aggression against other people. Therefore, someone with a gun shouldn't have it confiscated. (Responding to aggression in a violent way is of course not *initiating* aggression.) Beyond that, people have different opinions. There are some libertarians who are complete pacifists and would never defend themselves! Some would fight in wars, some would not. The pacifist libertarians would of course not deny anybody else their right to self-defense. But they just wouldn't exercise it themselves for various reasons. Some believe that violent problems can never be solved with violence. Some, like myself, are under personal religious convictions on the subject. Some libertarians would use force in defense only under certain limited situations. Some might just believe that it's a waste of resources; that the risk involved is not that high. You should know by know that value is subjective; risk is also appraised subjectively. Some people are always going to appraise risk low enough that they do not want to be armed. You'll find some people who want to pass laws to arm everybody; as a libertarian, you should strenuously oppose these as a violation of liberty.
Your mother has the right not to be armed. She has a reason not to be armed; it may be good or it may be bad; chances are that it is subjective. You appraise the situation differently from you. That doesn't mean she does not practice libertarianism! Not every libertarian is packing heat. Yes, it is fun to joke about believing we have the right to shoot someone for not respecting the "keep off the grass" sign on our own property. I do it, too, when I know people will realize I'm joking. :) (And as I said, I'm a pacifist.) But owning a gun is not the core of practicing libertarianism. Respecting the rights of other people is. And you need to start by respecting your mother's right to dictate terms on her own property, even if those terms are not pleasing to you. Don't be her central planner.
As for your question, there are existing libertarian theories of justice which you can check out. The one I'm most familiar with is found in Dr. Walter Block's Radical Austrianism, Radical Libertarianism seminar, which you can listen to in mises.org's media section. I believe the theory Block presented would allow for force to be used to apprehend someone guilty of a crime; I'm not sure how much force, though. Definitely check out what he has to say.
Rothbard would say (and did say in For a New Liberty, I believe), that it is always wrong to use force against someone not actually convicted of a crime. But he didn't mean convicted by a state law court. I would tend to say that in the case of witnessing a thief, you have personally convicted them and could use force against them. But think it on through: if you've caught a thief with no proof that he was breaking and entering (i.e., no other witnesses), then after apprehending him you still couldn't obtain justice in a real independent court. In such a case, I would say that you would be unable to publicly justify your use of force and would be taking a risk of the thief being able to obtain action against you! So possibly the maximum justice that can really be obtained is that you drive the thief off of your property, assuming he hasn't stolen or broken anything. In that case, I wouldn't think shooting him or apprehending him would be advisable.
Free market justice doesn't just consider obtaining justice as an abstract goal; it considers the cost and quantity of justice to be obtained.
100% agree, the way of the leaf "to fall at the appointed time" is 100% consistent with NAP and libertarianism. Do you pay taxes and/or finance the State? Does your belief on pacifism allow violence to be done on your behalf? Would you allow yourself to pay a non-state agent to protect your property?
One hundred trillion Zimbabwe dollar note
I do show my mom respect, I didn't mean to sound like I don't. It just infuriates me that even in a situation where it becomes obvious what the SAFE call would be, she simply says, I'll pray about it. My point has always been that you can't wait till you're in a situation that proves you need to be prepared to start being prepared, by then it's too late. This happens to a friend, and it's quite obvious that had he not had a gun, he would have been quite defenseless. And what if his mom got home first? What if this happened to my mom? I think she needs to carry as well.
Now... Also, to me, this is MORE than a right, it's a responsibility. Apparently the founding fathers of my country thought so too, because they said it (bearing arms and the militia) was necessary to the security of a free state. My Bible also tells me that my property and safety and family I have a responsibility to take care of, and that means being prepared to protect it. In todays world, that means having and being trained in the use of firearms, at a minimum. If you aren't a Christian or a die-hard Constitution/founding father lover, then maybe it's JUST a right for you, but to me it's more than that. As far as my mom goes, it just makes me mad that she is making herself a hypocrite.
As far as shooting at a fleeing suspect goes, I wrote that with a LOT of adrenaline running through my veins. Honestly, I'm still debating whether or not it would have been the right thing to do. I do think that had I been put in that situation, I probably would have taken shots.
Edit: honestly, I think the fact that they had assaulted his dog played a partial role in what I think my decision would have been. To me, stealing a TV may not really constitute that forceful of a subduing, but assault, even if it's to my dog, is a different story. By assaulting the dog they've shown aggression and violence, and they've shown that they're willing to use it for even something as petty as stealing a TV. If I hit a police dog, I'd be charged with assaulting a police officer, not to mention torn to shreds.
Edit: I think I've convinced her it'd be best to allow me to carry. So, I'll be able to carry in my house and yard, and once I'm 18, to and in my vehicle. Yay. If we can get our politicians to introduce and pass legislation that will lift the gun control laws, I'll be able to carry in public as well. That'd be best.
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