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 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 18 Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Using Deadly Force to Prevent Theft (Read 1151 times)
SkyChief
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 7485
Location: California Coast
Joined: Aug 18th, 2014
Re: Using Deadly Force to Prevent Theft
Reply #90 - Sep 12th, 2018 at 3:22pm
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Sep 12th, 2018 at 1:06pm:
Thanks. I do appreciate that. No one else liked the idea, though.

I described self-defense as a universal right months ago. 

If you recall, I said that even chickens have the right to self-defense. Regardless if the right is respected. It's a natural right, and it's universal.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 33527
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Using Deadly Force to Prevent Theft
Reply #91 - Sep 12th, 2018 at 3:44pm
Print Post  
TYCapitalism wrote on Sep 12th, 2018 at 10:50am:
The root cause is single-parent households in communities with high unemployment and low high school graduation rates.
But that has root causes too; the welfare state, "progressive" city planning stemming from Great Society programs, and the war on drugs.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TYCapitalism
Libertarian Full Member
***
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 52
Location: Mt. Vernon, IL
Joined: Feb 20th, 2014
Re: Using Deadly Force to Prevent Theft
Reply #92 - Sep 12th, 2018 at 3:57pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Sep 12th, 2018 at 3:44pm:
But that has root causes too; the welfare state, "progressive" city planning stemming from Great Society programs, and the war on drugs.


Conditions created by Marxist programs tend to create disorder and suffering on massive scales.

Yes.
  

Help me buy shotguns for women.
https://www.help50.org/donate
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 7486
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: Using Deadly Force to Prevent Theft
Reply #93 - Sep 13th, 2018 at 12:05am
Print Post  
GEMorton wrote on Sep 12th, 2018 at 2:21pm:
No, they are not a contract.


Oh?

GEMorton wrote on Sep 11th, 2018 at 11:42am:
Mutual respect for one another's rights is an implied contract to which everyone living in a social setting must be presumed to have consented. It binds any two agents only as long as both adhere to it; when one of them violates it, it becomes void between those two agents.


Face it: It's the same thing, and it's been 100% refuted on this forum. When you talk about the duty to respect another's rights, you're talking about the same thing I mean when I say having those rights. If you read the threads, you can clearly see I'm talking about whether others are bound by those rights or not.

That's the same thing I was talking about when I said that an attacker either didn't make that agreement or voided it.

SkyChief wrote on Sep 12th, 2018 at 3:22pm:
I described self-defense as a universal right months ago. 

If you recall, I said that even chickens have the right to self-defense. Regardless if the right is respected. It's a natural right, and it's universal.


And I said that to have self-defence, you must first have self-ownership. You haven't thought of a reason this isn't necessarily true.

A being can only defend its own property, or the property the true owner has given that being the consent to defend. A chicken's body is not its own property - it is the property of its owner.
  

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: 33527
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Using Deadly Force to Prevent Theft
Reply #94 - Sep 13th, 2018 at 7:38am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Sep 13th, 2018 at 12:05am:
A being can only defend its own property, or the property the true owner has given that being the consent to defend.
There is implied consent in our legal system that allows anyone to arrest a thief or defend someone else against a physical attack. At the very least, if I see someone breaking into your house, I can call the police, which amounts to me defending your property or maybe your life.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SkyChief
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 7485
Location: California Coast
Joined: Aug 18th, 2014
Re: Using Deadly Force to Prevent Theft
Reply #95 - Sep 13th, 2018 at 11:38am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Sep 13th, 2018 at 12:05am:
And I said that to have self-defence, you must first have self-ownership. You haven't thought of a reason this isn't necessarily true.

A being can only defend its own property, or the property the true owner has given that being the consent to defend. A chicken's body is not its own property - it is the property of its owner.

What if the chicken decides to fly away?

Who is the "owner" now?

If a Pakistani slave turns on his master and severs his jugular with a box-cutter, he has exercised self defense without self-ownership.

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
GEMorton
Libertarian Senior Member
****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 252
Joined: Aug 24th, 2015
Re: Using Deadly Force to Prevent Theft
Reply #96 - Sep 13th, 2018 at 11:53am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Sep 13th, 2018 at 12:05am:
Face it: It's the same thing, and it's been 100% refuted on this forum. When you talk about the duty to respect another's rights, you're talking about the same thing I mean when I say having those rights.


No, I am not. Or perhaps you're simply using "having" incorrectly. Having a right is one thing; others respecting your right is quite another. You have a right to X if you are the first possessor of X, or acquired X via a "chain of consent" from the first possessor. Whether one of those facts is true or not is an objective matter.

Having a right is a matter of fact with moral implications. If you have a right to X, and that fact is known to others, then it signals to them that they ought not interfere with your possession, use, or enjoyment of X. Whether they heed that signal or not is up to them, but their actions, whatever they may be, do not alter the fact that you have a right to X.

Similarly, that you own (say) a car is a matter of fact. That someone steals it, wrecks it, etc., does not alter the fact that you own it.

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 7486
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: Using Deadly Force to Prevent Theft
Reply #97 - Sep 13th, 2018 at 12:00pm
Print Post  
GEMorton wrote on Sep 13th, 2018 at 11:53am:
No, I am not. Or perhaps you're simply using "having" incorrectly. Having a right is one thing; others respecting your right is quite another. You have a right to X if you are the first possessor of X, or acquired X via a "chain of consent" from the first possessor. Whether one of those facts is true or not is an objective matter.

Having a right is a matter of fact with moral implications. If you have a right to X, and that fact is known to others, then it signals to them that they ought not interfere with your possession, use, or enjoyment of X. Whether they heed that signal or not is up to them, but their actions, whatever they may be, do not alter the fact that you have a right to X.

Similarly, that you own (say) a car is a matter of fact. That someone steals it, wrecks it, etc., does not alter the fact that you own it.


I suppose I am using "having" incorrectly. I'm not concerned in the slightest with what other people have if I don't have a duty to respect those rights. You can see that from my posts. The relevant issue is what is permissible for me to do to an attacker. What can I do to him? What can I not?

You can sub my duty to respect Alfie's right X for Alfie's right X in every last one of my previous posts, because I was simply mistaken about what having a right meant. If I don't have a duty to respect it, it's absolutely irrelevant to me.

I only care about others' rights if I have a duty to respect them. If I don't have a duty to respect those rights, it obviously doesn't matter to me whether they have them or not.
  

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: 33527
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Using Deadly Force to Prevent Theft
Reply #98 - Sep 13th, 2018 at 12:15pm
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Sep 13th, 2018 at 12:00pm:
I suppose I am using "having" incorrectly. I'm not concerned in the slightest with what other people have if I don't have a duty to respect those rights. You can see that from my posts. The relevant issue is what is permissible for me to do to an attacker. What can I do to him? What can I not?

You can sub my duty to respect Alfie's right X for Alfie's right X in every last one of my previous posts, because I was simply mistaken about what having a right meant. If I don't have a duty to respect it, it's absolutely irrelevant to me.

I only care about others' rights if I have a duty to respect them. If I don't have a duty to respect those rights, it obviously doesn't matter to me whether they have them or not.
Not respecting other people's rights can get you arrested. Maybe even executed. Maybe who you are trying to kill will kill you.

As long as you understand that, splitting philosophical hairs about whether that is an obligation under the law or a moral duty doesn't matter to me.

That obligation under the law comes from the morality of rights by the way.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 7486
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: Using Deadly Force to Prevent Theft
Reply #99 - Sep 13th, 2018 at 12:20pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Sep 13th, 2018 at 12:15pm:
As long as you understand that, splitting philosophical hairs about whether that is an obligation under the law or a moral duty doesn't matter to me.


It doesn't matter to me either. It's Morton splitting these hairs about how what he said was different than what I said.

Jeff wrote on Sep 13th, 2018 at 12:15pm:
That obligation under the law comes from the morality of rights by the way.


I agree. To me whether someone has a right should be the same question as whether or not I have a duty to respect it.

But since it doesn't make even the slightest difference to me, I'm willing to talk about my duty to respect rights rather than whether or not the other guy has them.

I've said many times that I don't care what other people do; I only care what I do. So just replace whether or not I'm violating a right with whether or not I'm violating a right I have a duty to respect.
  

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
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 18
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