Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Using Deadly Force to Prevent Theft
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 17 18 [19] 20 21 ... 32 Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Using Deadly Force to Prevent Theft (Read 7064 times)
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 42658
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Using Deadly Force to Prevent Theft
Reply #180 - Sep 25th, 2018 at 5:38pm
Print Post  
GEMorton wrote on Sep 25th, 2018 at 2:24pm:
Yes. The way to head off that didactic is to point out that the phrase, "property is not as important as human life," is non-cognitive and vacuous. It expresses no proposition with a determinable truth value.
Human life has intrinsic value.

Civilized people in general believe that to be true.

Tyrants of all stripes, but especially collectivists, think the individual human life has no intrinsic value, but is only valuable so far as it is able to serve the state, the collective.

Pick which belief you think is most true.

You are free to do that so far, but don't try to make me a slave of the collective. Angry


  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Little Big Man
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 5742
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Using Deadly Force to Prevent Theft
Reply #181 - Sep 25th, 2018 at 7:57pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Sep 25th, 2018 at 5:38pm:
Human life has intrinsic value.

Civilized people in general believe that to be true.

Tyrants of all stripes, but especially collectivists, think the individual human life has no intrinsic value, but is only valuable so far as it is able to serve the state, the collective.

Pick which belief you think is most true.

You are free to do that so far, but don't try to make me a slave of the collective.
Angry




You forgot to say, "only the local school board can morally do that."
  

Snarky no more!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 9693
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: Using Deadly Force to Prevent Theft
Reply #182 - Sep 25th, 2018 at 9:17pm
Print Post  
Here's the problem with self-defence: It's unworkable.

Either you can defend whatever is yours by whatever means necessary, or you can't.

If you can, then you can shoot a child for stealing bubble gum from your store, and that's obviously false. Even Rothbard said you can't do this.

If you cannot defend yourself and your stuff by any means necessary, people can just take your stuff whenever they find cases where the force necessary to prevent their act would be excessive.

Not only that, but the big dogs will decide (and to benefit themselves) that when you defend against Johnny, the force was excessive and you're the aggressor, but when you try to pull the same shit against Johnny, his self-defence was necessary.

Once you say, "Some defensive force is excessive," the big dogs will get to shoot the kids stealing bubble gum and the little guy is stripped of the right to use any defensive force. It will always be excessive. Lawyers will decide, and the little guy doesn't have the good ones. And does the NAP protect against this? Nope. Not if how you're interpreting it is, "Sometimes, defensive force is excessive."

If this is your intention, then you win, and my hat off to you.
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 42658
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Using Deadly Force to Prevent Theft
Reply #183 - Sep 26th, 2018 at 8:38am
Print Post  
Little Big Man wrote on Sep 25th, 2018 at 7:57pm:
You forgot to say, "only the local school board can morally do that."
There is a vast difference between paying taxes approved by local people through their local representative governments and being made someone's slave.

Limited taxation that serves moral purposes is moral.

I join with almost all other people in believing that it is moral to offer the opportunity to receive a basic education to all the children of a community, not only because each of those children, as a human being, has intrinsic value, but because its much easier to maintain a civilized community if the majority of people in the community are self-supporting productive adults.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 42658
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Using Deadly Force to Prevent Theft
Reply #184 - Sep 26th, 2018 at 8:40am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Sep 25th, 2018 at 9:17pm:
Here's the problem with self-defence: It's unworkable.

Either you can defend whatever is yours by whatever means necessary, or you can't.

There is a real and obvious distinction between self defense and the defense of your property.

Please decide which you want to talk about.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 42658
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Using Deadly Force to Prevent Theft
Reply #185 - Sep 26th, 2018 at 8:41am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Sep 25th, 2018 at 9:17pm:
Not only that, but the big dogs will decide (and to benefit themselves) that when you defend against Johnny, the force was excessive and you're the aggressor, but when you try to pull the same shit against Johnny, his self-defence was necessary.

Cheesy
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Little Big Man
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 5742
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Using Deadly Force to Prevent Theft
Reply #186 - Sep 26th, 2018 at 8:45am
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Sep 26th, 2018 at 8:38am:
There is a vast difference between paying taxes approved by local people through their local representative governments and being made someone's slave.

Limited taxation that serves moral purposes is moral.

I join with almost all other people in believing that it is moral to offer the opportunity to receive a basic education to all the children of a community, not only because each of those children, as a human being, has intrinsic value, but because its much easier to maintain a civilized community if the majority of people in the community are self-supporting productive adults.


Then you should join with almost all other people in believing that it is moral to offer the opportunity to receive health care to all the children of a community, not only because each of those children, as a human being, has intrinsic value, but because its much easier to maintain a civilized community if the majority of people in the community are healthy self-supporting productive adults.

Why do you oppose taxes for the purposes of health care?


  

Snarky no more!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 42658
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Using Deadly Force to Prevent Theft
Reply #187 - Sep 26th, 2018 at 9:12am
Print Post  
Little Big Man wrote on Sep 26th, 2018 at 8:45am:
Then you should join with almost all other people in believing that it is moral to offer the opportunity to receive health care to all the children of a community, not only because each of those children, as a human being, has intrinsic value, but because its much easier to maintain a civilized community if the majority of people in the community are healthy self-supporting productive adults.

Why do you oppose taxes for the purposes of health care?


Just for children, or for everybody? I might consider it if it was limited to needy children under the age of 10... But... I think charity can handle it.

Most children are naturally healthy and most parents can afford to pay for the necessary health care for their children. (At least they could before government intervention drove the costs beyond reach.) Charity can easily take up the slack. Offering health care as a free entitlement creates perverse incentives that lead to overuse and ballooning costs.

No children are naturally educated and many (most?) parents can't afford to educate their children. Charity most probably couldn't take up the slack. Offering free schooling doesn't lead to overuse and ballooning costs
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Little Big Man
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 5742
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Using Deadly Force to Prevent Theft
Reply #188 - Sep 26th, 2018 at 12:16pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Sep 26th, 2018 at 9:12am:
Just for children, or for everybody? I might consider it if it was limited to needy children under the age of 10... But... I think charity can handle it.

Most children are naturally healthy and most parents can afford to pay for the necessary health care for their children. (At least they could before government intervention drove the costs beyond reach.) Charity can easily take up the slack. Offering health care as a free entitlement creates perverse incentives that lead to overuse and ballooning costs.


So, Opposition was completely right about you. Any disagreement you have with taxes has nothing to do with any right to own property.

Quote:
No children are naturally educated and many (most?) parents can't afford to educate their children. Charity most probably couldn't take up the slack. Offering free schooling doesn't lead to overuse and ballooning costs


I have to think you're kidding about that.  Right?



  

Snarky no more!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Little Big Man
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 5742
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Using Deadly Force to Prevent Theft
Reply #189 - Sep 26th, 2018 at 12:30pm
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Sep 25th, 2018 at 9:17pm:
Here's the problem with self-defence: It's unworkable.

Either you can defend whatever is yours by whatever means necessary, or you can't.

If you can, then you can shoot a child for stealing bubble gum from your store, and that's obviously false. Even Rothbard said you can't do this.

If you cannot defend yourself and your stuff by any means necessary, people can just take your stuff whenever they find cases where the force necessary to prevent their act would be excessive.

Not only that, but the big dogs will decide (and to benefit themselves) that when you defend against Johnny, the force was excessive and you're the aggressor, but when you try to pull the same shit against Johnny, his self-defence was necessary.

Once you say, "Some defensive force is excessive," the big dogs will get to shoot the kids stealing bubble gum and the little guy is stripped of the right to use any defensive force. It will always be excessive. Lawyers will decide, and the little guy doesn't have the good ones. And does the NAP protect against this? Nope. Not if how you're interpreting it is, "Sometimes, defensive force is excessive."

If this is your intention, then you win, and my hat off to you.


Interesting points.  We have to have clear laws regulating self-defense.  In the absence of them, the judges would decide case-by-case and that never works out for the reasons you  mention and others.

I believe such regulations should allow me to shoot a person stealing my car but not a child stealing bubble gum.  I'll have to contemplate to see if I can come up with another Sack's Razor to differentiate the two in a way that would be generalizable.

The point of this thread was to get Jeff to explain why he thinks it is wrong for me to use a gun on a person stealing my car but right for IRS agents to use a gun on me if I'm "stealing," i.e. not paying, the money they are morally justified in thieving from me.

Once again, Jeff is much to slippery to answer.

  

Snarky no more!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 17 18 [19] 20 21 ... 32
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Using Deadly Force to Prevent Theft
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy