Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Glitter Bomb - Aggression?
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6 Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Glitter Bomb - Aggression? (Read 720 times)
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 12073
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Glitter Bomb - Aggression?
Oct 9th, 2019 at 10:29pm
Print Post  


The summary is that this man kept getting packages stolen off his doorstep, so he built a glitter bomb into a fake package with all-around recording to record the alleged thief getting glitterbombed.

Sure enough, the alleged thief stole the package and got glitterbombed.

I have a couple problems with this as the NAP applies.

The first thing to note is that this is not an act that defends property - the glitter bomb maker in fact wanted the glitter bomb to be stolen. This is an act of punishment.

One is that even Nozick says that justice should not be a free-for-all, and that to prevent incidences of double, triple, quaduple, or uncertain punishment, not everyone can possibly have the right to punish.

Nozick's argument is that if everyone has the right to punish, the alleged thief gets punished many times, resulting in much greater punishment than is the alleged thief's due, which is unacceptable. And if punishment is on a first-come, first-serve basis, the alleged thief might hire someone to punish him only lightly, getting off with a slap on the wrist (I don't see how this is different that the alleged thief paying the dominant private security company, which is the answer Nozick comes up with - that only they may puinish - but oh well).

Nevertheless, the conclusion is that not everyone can just punish, even if they prove the crime and are the victim.

Secondly, the glitter bomb skips a very important step: He has failed to prove the crime to the dominant private security company (in this case, the police) before acting.

Thirdly, there is in fact no crime to punish, since the glitter bomb maker wanted this particular package to be taken, rendering it a voluntary transfer of ownership, NOT A THEFT.

I would hope this aggressor would be arrested for causing intentional damage to the alleged thief's property.

Or have I missed something?
  

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
 
SkyChief
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 12539
Location: California Coast
Joined: Aug 18th, 2014
Re: Glitter Bomb - Aggression?
Reply #1 - Oct 9th, 2019 at 10:44pm
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Oct 9th, 2019 at 10:29pm:
. . . the glitter bomb skips a very important step: He has failed to prove the crime to the dominant private security company (in this case, the police) before acting.


Not really.   Glitter bomber doesn't need to prove anything.

The person stealing the package needs to accept responsibility for his/her action.

In this case,  the victim was smarter than the perp. 

Oh well....   Who will shed tears for the perp?   Not me!
  

Governments will always devise ways to deprive an honest man of his money or property, and claim that it's legal.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 12073
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: Glitter Bomb - Aggression?
Reply #2 - Oct 9th, 2019 at 10:52pm
Print Post  
SkyChief wrote on Oct 9th, 2019 at 10:44pm:
In this case,  the victim was smarter than the perp. 


Right, if the crime was proven in a court of law. I don't see that happening since 1) there was no crime and 2) the "victim" took unilateral action to punish without proving anything, legally.

SkyChief wrote on Oct 9th, 2019 at 10:44pm:
Oh well....   Who will shed tears for the perp?   Not me!


Not me either. But this is a matter of applying logic, not emotion. (My emotions would generally steer me in your direction, but I'm ignoring them and applying the Non-Aggression Principle.)

It seems to me that the glitter bomb maker aggressed, and the alleged thief did not. They took a package that was set out for them to take. Not theft. Or am I missing something?
  

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
 
SkyChief
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 12539
Location: California Coast
Joined: Aug 18th, 2014
Re: Glitter Bomb - Aggression?
Reply #3 - Oct 9th, 2019 at 11:26pm
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Oct 9th, 2019 at 10:52pm:
. . . this is a matter of applying logic, not emotion. (My emotions would generally steer me in your direction, but I'm ignoring them and applying the Non-Aggression Principle.)

That's not applicable here.

If perp didn't aggress, then no glitter would have happened.

The Opposition wrote on Oct 9th, 2019 at 10:52pm:
It seems to me that the glitter bomb maker aggressed, and the alleged thief did not. They took a package that was set out for them to take. Not theft. Or am I missing something?
Nope.

The aggression occurred when perp stole the package.

The glitter-bomb was just a middle-finger gesture. . .

Totally appropriate, IMO.

Here's a little QUIZ:

When someone steals something from you, how many tears should you shed on behalf of the thief?

A) 14

B) 216

C) 2171

D) none.

Only one of these answers is correct . . .  I will reveal the correct answer in a later post. . .

  

Governments will always devise ways to deprive an honest man of his money or property, and claim that it's legal.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 51221
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Glitter Bomb - Aggression?
Reply #4 - Oct 10th, 2019 at 9:13am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Oct 9th, 2019 at 10:29pm:


The summary is that this man kept getting packages stolen off his doorstep, so he built a glitter bomb into a fake package with all-around recording to record the alleged thief getting glitterbombed.

Sure enough, the alleged thief stole the package and got glitterbombed.

I have a couple problems with this as the NAP applies.

The first thing to note is that this is not an act that defends property - the glitter bomb maker in fact wanted the glitter bomb to be stolen.
You're such a jerkwad.
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 51221
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Glitter Bomb - Aggression?
Reply #5 - Oct 10th, 2019 at 9:15am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Oct 9th, 2019 at 10:29pm:
Or have I missed something?
Well, yes. The guy was tired of having packages stolen off his doorstep.
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 51221
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Glitter Bomb - Aggression?
Reply #6 - Oct 10th, 2019 at 9:17am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Oct 9th, 2019 at 10:29pm:
Secondly, the glitter bomb skips a very important step: He has failed to prove the crime to the dominant private security company (in this case, the police) before acting.

He was gathering evidence to present to the police, so they could know who the thief was. Smiley
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 12073
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: Glitter Bomb - Aggression?
Reply #7 - Oct 10th, 2019 at 10:30am
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Oct 10th, 2019 at 9:15am:
Well, yes. The guy was tired of having packages stolen off his doorstep.


So the glitter bomb maker did not aggress?

SkyChief wrote on Oct 9th, 2019 at 11:26pm:
That's not applicable here.

If perp didn't aggress, then no glitter would have happened.


The alleged thief is not a perpetrator, not yet. That's not how the justice system works, or how it should work.

You're confusing logically must be guilty with proven guilty in a court of law. Only one of these things makes someone a thief.

Or am I wrong?

SkyChief wrote on Oct 9th, 2019 at 11:26pm:
The aggression occurred when perp stole the package.


The alleged thief took something that was set out, specifically, for him to take. Where is the theft?

SkyChief wrote on Oct 9th, 2019 at 11:26pm:
When someone steals something from you, how many tears should you shed on behalf of the thief?


None. But I heave learned that the one who potentially violated rights must always be in the spotlight, and his rights held paramount. You must prove, to a court of law, that he aggressed, before he is punished, and even then, you can't punish him yourself. Or is that incorrect?
  

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
 
SkyChief
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 12539
Location: California Coast
Joined: Aug 18th, 2014
Re: Glitter Bomb - Aggression?
Reply #8 - Oct 10th, 2019 at 11:28am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Oct 10th, 2019 at 10:30am:
. . .I heave learned that the one who potentially violated rights must always be in the spotlight, and his rights held paramount. You must prove, to a court of law, that he aggressed, before he is punished, and even then, you can't punish him yourself. Or is that incorrect?
Intent is important in a trial - especially when an injury or death occurs.  Intent can mean the difference between 1st degree murder and 2nd degree manslaughter - a difference of 20 years in prison sentences in most places.

With the glitter bomb thing, I think you're still mixed up on who the aggressor is.

Thought experiment:

If I leave my truck parked on the street with the doors unlocked and key in the ignition, and a 14 year old boy steals it and later mows down two 4th graders in a crosswalk, am I in any way liable for those deaths?
  

Governments will always devise ways to deprive an honest man of his money or property, and claim that it's legal.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 51221
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Glitter Bomb - Aggression?
Reply #9 - Oct 10th, 2019 at 5:33pm
Print Post  
SkyChief wrote on Oct 10th, 2019 at 11:28am:
Intent is important in a trial - especially when an injury or death occurs.  Intent can mean the difference between 1st degree murder and 2nd degree manslaughter - a difference of 20 years in prison sentences in most places.

With the glitter bomb thing, I think you're still mixed up on who the aggressor is.

Thought experiment:

If I leave my truck parked on the street with the doors unlocked and key in the ignition, and a 14 year old boy steals it and later mows down two 4th graders in a crosswalk, am I in any way liable for those deaths?
You're the only adult with insurance involved, I think, so of course at least most of it was your fault... That's what "progressives" claim anyway, because children aren't expected to know right from wrong, and besides, they usually have neither money or insurance. Smiley

Edit: Shouldn't the car manufacturer be somewhat liable too? For making a car that allowed you to leave your keys in it?
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Glitter Bomb - Aggression?
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy