Who said we’re all “propertarians”? Hmm?
What exactly are you disagreeing with?
I never said there was.
As Autolykos has pointed out, you are creating a false dilemma. There are more than two options.
And I would like to state again, that I have not said that this couple was necessarily right or wrong. I am just pointing out that you seem to have no regard for the concept of proportionality, and I think that is a shame. As Rothbard has pointed out, if you go beyond what the appropriate amount of force is, then you are now an aggressor too. You don’t seem to agree with this concept.
“They’re allowed to remove the trespasser by force.”
you said they couldn’t shoot them in the head, so what can they do? can they shoot them at all? what kind of will you permit them to use?
Shooting a person in the head doesn’t remove him from your property, does it? In fact, shooting a person at all doesn’t do so. Keep in mind that we’re talking about trespassing and refusing to leave per se - that is, we’re not assuming any additional intentions to the trespasser. With that said, I will permit them to use whatever force is necessary to remove the trespasser. As lethal force does not remove the trespasser, it doesn’t qualify.
First, you shoot him in the head. Then - as he is no longer alive - you homestead his body, take the valuables that you want and toss him in the river. By libertarian logic, nothing wrong with this! Unless you consider yourself a rebel and reject the common principles - the sanctity of private property, the homesteading principle, victim-enforced law
Troll harder, Xarthaz.
I find this topic fascinating. Is there an example of a scenario you can offer whereby it is justified to shoot someone in the head after he is breaking into your home? gotlucky derails objective discussion with anecdotal value judgments regarding the ethics (or lack thereof) of proportionality. Mr. Autolykos, I think you will give me sufficient material to better understand the “shooting in the head” scenario as I think that is the main cause of chasm between some members in this thread.
“With that said, I will permit them to use whatever force is necessary to remove the trespasser.”
can you be specific? you’re subjects would want you to give them specifics on what force they could use, so they don’t get in trouble.
Having a shoot first, ask questions later policy will really just incentivize criminals to hold the same policy. Criminals aren’t criminals for no reason, they are criminals because it appears to be part-time work with a chance at high pay-off. (Off topic, but we could probably get rid of a lot of petty crime just by having a minimum living wage… but that’s another topic completely)
If everyone just starts with shoot first, I really wouldn’t be surprised if home invasions stop being “root around in the dark” and start being “bust in the door and start shooting.”
First I’d appreciate it if you fixed your tone. If you’re no longer taking me seriously, then why bother responding to me at all? And why should I continue to take you seriously?
Criminals are rational just like everyone else. Not everyone who considers a life of crime will find the risk to be worth the reward. I sure as hell don’t. The goal then is to make crime so risky that the potential pay-off is far outweighed by the potential risk for most people who might consider crime as a “part-time job” over a legitimate (legal) business so that the only criminals left are the true crazies that just need killing. They’ll self select themselves for extermination. So hopefully you’re right. Hopefully the result would be to marginalize a significant population of criminals so that the only people who would even consider breaking into someone’s house are precisely the kinds of people who should just be shot on sight. Homeowners won’t have to give a second thought to pulling the trigger in their own homes because they know they’re probably dealing with potential murderers not just petty thieves and potential thieves will know that going in.
I would think this would essentially be the goal. No longer would people even think of breaking into someone’s house just to “root around.” Such an activity would be incredibly risky because the owner could just kill that person on sight with a reasonable assurance of impunity. The only way anyone would even consider a break-in would be if they were ready to go in and kill everyone. But not every criminal is going to be willing to take the kind of extreme risk because they’ll know that homeowners know that the odds are that they’re dealing with people who should just be shot on sight.
The goal should be to make crime not just not pay (be a break even at worst) but really not be worth it at all (be a serious net loss by most people’s reckoning) for anyone who gets caught in the act, not to make crime pay for a broader swath of potential criminals plus the true psychopaths who truly relish murdering.
Criminals are rational just like everyone else. Not everyone who considers a life of crime will find the risk to be worth the reward. I sure as hell don’t. The goal then is to make crime so risky that the potential pay-off is far outweighed by the potential risk for most people who might consider crime as a “part-time job” over a legitimate (legal) business so that the only criminals left are the true crazies that just need killing. They’ll self select themselves for extermination. So hopefully you’re right. Hopefully the result would be to marginalize a significant population of criminals so that the only people who would even consider breaking into someone’s house are precisely the kinds of people who should just be shot on sight. Homeowners won’t have to give a second thought to pulling the trigger in their own homes because they know they’re probably dealing with potential murderers not just petty thieves and potential thieves will know that going in.
The problem is that most people who consider a life of crime follow a policy of “I’m too smart to get caught.” And this has been true throughout history. Do you think the Romans were soft on crime?
This brings up another question, one brought up earlier… why don’t we just publicly execute shoplifters, tresspassers, etc? Do you think if we just executed racists willy nilly that would end racism, or intesify it, or nothing?
I would think this would essentially be the goal. No longer would people even think of breaking into someone’s house just to “root around.” Such an activity would be incredibly risky because the owner could just kill that person on sight with a reasonable assurance of impunity. The only way anyone would even consider a break-in would be if they were ready to go in and kill everyone. But not every criminal is going to be willing to take the kind of extreme risk because they’ll know that homeowners know that the odds are that they’re dealing with people who should just be shot on sight.
Most people are well aware of the element of surprise. These draconian measures have been tried often in the past, if they have any effect on actual theivery it is minimal at best. Again, the theif sees himself as too smart to get caught, and having the element of surprise. If he knows you will simply be allowed to shoot first ask questions later, he’s just going to break in and do the same. This is exactly the war of all against all that makes the state think it has any kind of legitimacy; ie, that criminal law is more effective than common law.
For example; 3 strikes laws. There is no significant difference in the drop of the homocide rate in California where the 3 strikes are enforced and where they are not. Obviously, something other than the harshness of criminal punishment is the major factor in this drop… most likely the decline in hostilities between rival gangs.
“First I’d appreciate it if you fixed your tone. If you’re no longer taking me seriously, then why bother responding to me at all? And why should I continue to take you seriously?”
you remind me of bernie mac…in some movie…i forgot which one…he looks right at this dude…and says “watch how you talk to me”…only he sounds alot cooler and tougher than the voice in my head.
Source for claim?
I have no idea. Does it matter?
I dunno why don’t we? Why might we look on one crime more severely than another? Btw in states like mine (GA) we have castle laws. You can shoot a trespasser under certain conditions.
I have no idea. It’s impossible to police thoughts, it’s possible to police action. Criminal action is revealed preference.
Source for claim?
Source for claim?
I just thought of a really good one too. Why let people own guns? Might not criminals decide to buy guns too? Shouldn’t we all disarm so that criminals won’t have a reason to own guns to protect themselves from homeowners?
Source for claim?
Fair enough, personal anectdote. It comes from having lived with and befriended criminals. I have no data, so it’s largely irrelevant.
I have no idea. Does it matter?
I think it does, since that’s really the meat of the issue; does harsh punishment for crime deter crime?
I dunno why don’t we? Why might we look on one crime more severely than another? Btw in states like mine (GA) we have castle laws. You can shoot a trespasser under certain conditions.
And GA, as far as I know, has just as bad of a crime problem as the rest of the country, and worse in some places (like Atl).
I have no idea. It’s impossible to police thoughts, it’s possible to police action. Criminal action is revealed preference.
Fair enough. Do you think executing shoplifters will significantly decrease theft from stores, or channel the theft more into violent robbery?
Source for claim?
For which claim? That draconian measures have been tried, and seen to fail, in the past? Or that criminals in this situation will engage in fatal home invasions more often?
Source for claim?
Wikipedia; 3 strikes law
For a start. Go down to the sources, I think #5 or something.
(Honestly most of my data comes from a paper I did years ago in school. I just went to the wiki page to make sure the data was still consistent)
Well that’s probably unknowable to some degree. How can we know how many break-ins would have occurred had the homeowners had less defense rights in their home? Even if we try to compare two different time periods, how do we control for other variables? In this instance I see no reason why homeowners shouldn’t have a full suite of protections against potential invaders.
Either way, I’m not intending to speak about the broader issue of crime control across all instances of crime, though I’m not entirely certain that a public with expansive defense rights is ever a bad thing. I’m more focused on one particular form of crime right now and that’s home break-ins. I’m also not saying that proportionate response deserves no consideration, even at a gut level some punishments may just seem over-the-top. I’m just saying that I think both deterrent and proportionate responses are worth considering in this issue.
I’m trying to find a good site for crime statistics in GA. I’m gonna bet a lot of the crime is drug related and in low-income areas but I can’t stand by that yet.
I have no idea, the act of breaking into a house seems fundamentally different from shoplifting from a store. There’s different trade-offs to examine when considering executing shoplifters.
I would be interested to see both actually.
The source of the claim in the wikipedia article merely restates the claim that crime dropped after the implementation of three strikes, the wikipedia article then says “However, violent crime has also fallen in other areas of California where the Three Strikes law is not enforced. It should also be noted that punishments for homicides are extremely harsh, resulting in extremely long sentences, life sentences without the possibility of parole or even the death penalty, even for the first conviction, overshadowing any deterrent effect of the three strikes law.”
Within the actual article I found this: “Crime generally has been going down since 1994; it’s now half what it was in 1994,” says UCLA public policy professor Mark Kleiman. “It’s a spectacularly dramatic social change.”
Kleiman says police departments have new crime-predicting tools and sometimes better community relations. Sentences are stricter, and there are more prisons.
There’s another big difference between now and the early 1990s, when the crack wars were at their peak: “Crack dealers have learned how to do business without killing each other,” Kleiman says. "In the early days, it was like a gold rush, and people were literally shooting each other on the street corners.
“They were also heavily armed and shooting each other over petty interpersonal disputes.”
Kleiman says that has calmed down because “a lot of the people who would be committing murder in L.A. are dead, and the rest are doing life in prison.”
I also found this study in the citations. It’s kind of a long read. Of particular interest: "California has seen the longest and greatest drop in crime in the last 10 years since such records have been kept. The most remarkable part of these side-by-side crime drops is that at the same time California increased its general population by 1/3, which is a total reversal of what was projected, since more population has historically always translated into more crime…
The reduction in crime that occurred after the passage of 3-Strikes speaks for itself. Any objective assessment would credit 3-Strikes with playing a major role in California’s record crimes drops."
Ofcourse statistics don’t always tell the whole story but I’m not sure that your source is in total agreement with your opinion.
Is that part about “the voice in my head” referring to me?
And are you going to fix your tone or not?
Well that’s probably unknowable to some degree. How can we know how many break-ins would have occurred had the homeowners had less defense rights in their home? Even if we try to compare two different time periods, how do we control for other variables? In this instance I see no reason why homeowners shouldn’t have a full suite of protections against potential invaders.
Either way, I’m not intending to speak about the broader issue of crime control across all instances of crime, though I’m not entirely certain that a public with expansive defense rights is ever a bad thing. I’m more focused on one particular form of crime right now and that’s home break-ins. I’m also not saying that proportionate response deserves no consideration, even at a gut level some punishments may just seem over-the-top. I’m just saying that I think both deterrent and proportionate responses are worth considering in this issue.
Fair enough. I don’t think this issue can truly be solved without more conclusive data. For now, let’s just say I prefer more leniency on crime in general; from the thought process that punishment is treating the symptoms, not the disease.
I have no idea, the act of breaking into a house seems fundamentally different from shoplifting from a store. There’s different trade-offs to examine when considering executing shoplifters.
They’re different. I don’t think they are “fundamentally” different tho. Both involve a property owner protecting her property.
I would be interested to see both actually.
I think any cursory study of history will show that draconian law usually just exacerbates the problem… at least that’s been my interpertation. As far as the fatal home invasions go… that’s more just me thinking what I would do were I a criminal.
The source of the claim in the wikipedia article merely restates the claim that crime dropped after the implementation of three strikes, the wikipedia article then says “However, violent crime has also fallen in other areas of California where the Three Strikes law is not enforced. It should also be noted that punishments for homicides are extremely harsh, resulting in extremely long sentences, life sentences without the possibility of parole or even the death penalty, even for the first conviction, overshadowing any deterrent effect of the three strikes law.”
Within the actual article I found this: “Crime generally has been going down since 1994; it’s now half what it was in 1994,” says UCLA public policy professor Mark Kleiman. “It’s a spectacularly dramatic social change.”
Kleiman says police departments have new crime-predicting tools and sometimes better community relations. Sentences are stricter, and there are more prisons.
There’s another big difference between now and the early 1990s, when the crack wars were at their peak: “Crack dealers have learned how to do business without killing each other,” Kleiman says. "In the early days, it was like a gold rush, and people were literally shooting each other on the street corners.
“They were also heavily armed and shooting each other over petty interpersonal disputes.”
Kleiman says that has calmed down because “a lot of the people who would be committing murder in L.A. are dead, and the rest are doing life in prison.”
I also found this study in the citations. It’s kind of a long read. Of particular interest: "California has seen the longest and greatest drop in crime in the last 10 years since such records have been kept. The most remarkable part of these side-by-side crime drops is that at the same time California increased its general population by 1/3, which is a total reversal of what was projected, since more population has historically always translated into more crime…
The reduction in crime that occurred after the passage of 3-Strikes speaks for itself. Any objective assessment would credit 3-Strikes with playing a major role in California’s record crimes drops."
Ofcourse statistics don’t always tell the whole story but I’m not sure that your source is in total agreement with your opinion.
“Total agreement?” No. Yet it is clear that the 3 strikes law could not have played that major of a role in the drop in crime, as crime dropped just as much where it is not enforced. Tho, according to your study, “harsh punishment” may have, so that is a different story.
It’s interesting, and I will have to look over it. Perhaps in some circumstances harsh punishment can deter crime.
You’re making too much sense for many of the idealists in this thread. This is why I maintain that so many anarcho-capitalists/voluntaryists are idealists. They believe that people aren’t naturally competitive; that the Hobbesian “fallacy” somehow precludes people’s greed. I believe that the majority of people are good, but I know that there are many people who would take advantage of complete chaos and loot, rape and murder at will. There will eventually be an economic collapse, and when there is, all the fat, lazy assholes who’ve been subsidized their whole lives will go looking for their “fair share,” no matter at whose expense.