what do you mean by ‘rejecting private property?’ just because someone breaks in to someone elses house doesnt necessarily mean he is rejecting private property…
Well the act of breaking into someones house is rejecting their private property. If he accepted their private property he wouldn’t do it. Maybe acceptance and rejection arent good terms but the same reason he is breaking into the house is the same reason the owner can kill him.
If owner has property rights and he breaks in. By breaking in he is making the claim that the owner doesnt have rights to his own property. So if the criminal isnt respecting the owners property rights why should the owner respect his?
I think you’re reaching with that one.
What do you mean?
You’re saying if someone tries to pick-pocket me I can just turn around and snap their neck. And why? Because people are property, and property is property. And if you violate property, you violate poeple and suspend your right to property, ie, your person.
Death to petty thiefs!
I think that’s reaching for a conclusion that just doesn’t exist.
Not to mention that people are not property, or they could be owned and exchanged. Not even Rothbard supports this positon.
There is no point even trying to debate that people are not property since self ownership is self evident from your comment.. To deny this is like exercising control of your body to argue that you cannot exercise control over your body.
Criminal breaking into someones home = violation of property.
Killing someone = violation of property.
Why can the criminal, initiating force, violate property while the owner, in self defense, cannot violate the criminals property? The criminal by breaking in is making a universal rule of denial of property so it’s logically consistent if the owner applies that back. The criminal sounds like a government since the government violates property through taxation, initiation of force, while the citizen cannot tax back in self defense.
“Anytime you accept a rule or a conduct of behavior that is not universal, you are being bullied, manipulated, and controlled.” – Stefan Molyneux
Ownership implies control, but more imporantly, exchangability. So either I can exchange control of my person, and concurrently my future children’s persons, or you are misusing the term property.
The criminal sounds like a government since the government violates property through taxation, initiation of force, while the citizen cannot tax back in self defense.
So, it’s okay if I shoot Ron Paul?
You’ve just proven you own your body by exercising control over it to post that comment.
Why did you skip over the important part of what I said and then bring up a red herring like asking me if it’s okay to shoot Ron Paul? I get the feeling you’re not debating honestly. Im trying to bring up a discussion about universality and you have ignored it, Why can the criminal, initiating force, violate property while the owner, in self defense, cannot violate the criminals property?
If there is Person A and Person B. Person A taxes Person B making it a preferable behaviour to tax others so should have no problem when Person B does it back. So the government has a preferable bahaviour to tax others why does it have such a problem when the others do it back?
Anytime you accept a bahaviour that is not universal you are being bullied. So going back to the owner of the house and the criminal. The criminal by breaking in is prefering the denial of property rights over property rights and should have no problem when it is applied back. If he does have a problem, then he is making that behaviour only preferable to him and thus the owner is being bullied.
Well, in Theravada Buddhism, which stems from Siddhartha Gautama’s days as a Jain, there is absolutely no mystical aspect to karma. I’m inclined to absolutely agree with you there, too.
As for caring about stuff, I agree, I could forsake all my possessions if it meant my family’s safety, and I hope any other grown man would do so in a heartbeat. Possessions can be replaced, for the most part, and the first priority in any family man’s list ought to be his family’s immediate safety. But how about long term safety? Do you not think shelter is a form of it? How about your food? Trust me, if chaos ensued, and people were trying to take your food left and right, I somehow think your passive nature would be pushed to the side and you would really have your family’s and your best interest at heart and defend your property by any means possible at the time.
As for karate, hell no I don’t waste my time with that stuff lol. I just think it’s so pathetic that it’s a useful example on here b/c so many karate practitioners that I know remind me of boyscouts and other “tough guy” activities. They really know a whole bunch of nothing and are all talk. I say good old high school wrestling will take a guy a lot farther in the street than karate any day. What can I say? I’m a big MMA fan, and I’d just seen this other guy’s pic on here of a fighter so it made me think of the example. You have to admit, though, we all have known at least one pathetic karate instructor in our lives, lol! Funny Cobra Kai reference btw.
Well, I would certainly think it’s not easy to take someone’s life…but if I had to choose between some guy that broke in my house and my life or my family’s, he’s going to be deader than a doornail. I will never waste the rest of my life knowing I did the wrong thing by letting my family or myself get hurt instead of wondering if I went to far by killing the guy who broke in. Talk about guilt that lasts a lifetime. If you don’t protect your loved ones, what point is there to loving them in the first place?
You’ve just proven you own your body by exercising control over it to post that comment
DId you even read my post? Ownership implies more than just control, or else governments in fact do own all the property in their territory. It implies exchange most importantly. And you can’t exchange control over one’s self. Sure you could sell yourself into slavery, but even then, you are still the one controlling it physically, if not legally. Self-ownership is a contradiction in terms; it misuses the term “ownership.”
Why did you skip over the important part of what I said and then bring up a red herring like asking me if it’s okay to shoot Ron Paul?
All Governments violate property. All violaters of property forfeit their right to property. (Is this a fair representation of your view?) Ron Paul is a member of the US government. Therefore, RP has forfeited his right to his property, specifically his person and is fair game for anyone to murder. It’s not a red herring, it’s the logical conclusion of your positon.
Why can the criminal, initiating force, violate property while the owner, in self defense, cannot violate the criminals property
He can do as he pleases. But many legal codes around the world recognize there is a difference between self-defense and defensive homicide. Once again, if someone steals 50c off me, am I justified in stabbing him in the throat? IMO, no. There are far more reasonable ways to handle said situation. Would I have a problem with a law that didn’t punish one for not exercising restraint in self-defense? No. Do I think laws that do are better? Yes.
Anytime you accept a bahaviour that is not universal you are being bullied. So going back to the owner of the house and the criminal. The criminal by breaking in is prefering the denial of property rights over property rights and should have no problem when it is applied back. If he does have a problem, then he is making that behaviour only preferable to him and thus the owner is being bullied.
To say this means you can indiscriminately kill petty thiefs implies that self-ownership is real.. which, once again, is false.
I agree, major red herring on Lautzu del Zinn’s part.
Basically, Laotzu del Zinn, you’re looking at life in strictly utilitarian terms, from what I can tell. Thus any statist has as much value as Ron Paul in the strict, utilitarian sense (though I’m sure most would disagree, lol). However, when someone breaks in to steal or do worse, we kill them. They have basically forsaken their internal judgment system to unfairly gain some kind of advantage at my or my family’s expense. Thus, it’s justified to kill them because of the threat they’re issuing.
I’m curious: how would you have faired if you were a Jew in the concentration camps? Really, I’m curious because ideal-minded people usually always have an answer for that scenario. I say I would have killed the Nazis and escaped as quickly as possible, and I wouldn’t have looked back. I would have loved the Allied Forces coming in, and I would be most concerned with protecting my family.
Again, you’re proven you own your body by posting. I don’t think it’s valid to say ownership comes just from exchangability. Because you are exercising control over your own body to argue that you cannot exercise control over your body because it isnt exchangible. If you don’t own your body then how do you have responsibility for your thoughts and actions. How do I know you posted your comment? How do I know who im talking to? If you don’t own yourself then who does?
Yes it is fair but I wasnt arguing shooting I was arguing why can’t we tax back. Ok maybe it’s not a red herring I just concerned of being accussed of some gun shooting nutter.
Personally im not advocating shooting a criminal or stabbing him in the throat. Im trying to reason from first principles.
Reasonable ways decided by whom though? Are individuals property up to what others decide? If the owner of the house and the criminal breaking in own themselves shouldnt they be responsible for their own actions? So if the criminals preferable behaviour is denial of property doesnt this allow the owner of the house to deny the criminals property (body) in self defense i.e kill him. The criminal is accepting this by the very fact his preferable behaviour is the denial of property. It’s not something I would do personally though if I was the owner of the house unless my life or my families life is in danger.
Self ownership isnt real? who owns me or you?
Basically, Laotzu del Zinn, you’re looking at life in strictly utilitarian terms, from what I can tell. Thus any statist has as much value as Ron Paul in the strict, utilitarian sense (though I’m sure most would disagree, lol)
I have my ideals, moral, and ethical positons. But yes, I find utiltaritanism a more “scientific” way of approaching things. But neither am I strictly ends justify means then I am means justify ends.
However, when someone breaks in to steal or do worse, we kill them. They have basically forsaken their internal judgment system to unfairly gain some kind of advantage at my or my family’s expense. Thus, it’s justified to kill them because of the threat they’re issuing
Does this apply to petty theives and pick pockets? If someone steals a stamp from me, am I justified in bashing his skull in with a hammer?
'm curious: how would you have faired if you were a Jew in the concentration camps?
I would never have ended up in one. I have fairly good wilderness survival skills, and I am always on the ready to move somewhere safer in the unlikely event of such things happening here, in this time.
I’m sure there were Jews that thought they would do the same as you… sadly individuals rarely fair well against militaries.
Again, you’re proven you own your body by posting. I don’t think it’s valid to say ownership comes just from exchangability. Because you are exercising control over your own body to argue that you cannot exercise control over your body because it isnt exchangible. If you don’t own your body then how do you have responsibility for your thoughts and actions. How do I know you posted your comment? How do I know who im talking to? If you don’t own yourself then who does?
Nobody. There is a difference between control and ownership. I can no more exchange control over myself than I can fart and lift off to the moon.
A title, or a right of ownership, establishes the relation between the property and other persons, assuring the owner the right to dispose of the property as they see fit. (From Wikipedia on property)
Ownership involves multiple rights, collectively referred to astitle, which may be separated and held by different parties…
The process and mechanics of ownership are fairly complex since one can gain, transfer and lose ownership of property in a number of ways. (From Wikipedia on ownership)
Title is a legal term for a bundle of rights in a piece of property in which a party may own either a legal interest or an equitable interest.[1] The rights in the bundle may be separated and held by different parties. It may also refer to a formal document that serves as evidence of ownership. Conveyance of the document may be required in order to transfer ownership in the property to another person. Title is distinct from possession, a right that often accompanies ownership but is not necessarily sufficient to prove it. (From Wikipedia on title)
Ownership differs from possession or control simply because something owned can be exchanged, otherwise governments wuold actually own stuff, which they do not, theifs too. Note that exchange is different than theft or taxation, as it is mutual.
es it is fair but I wasnt arguing shooting I was arguing why can’t we tax back. Ok maybe it’s not a red herring I just concerned of being accussed of some gun shooting nutter.
Lol I was not trying to accuse you as such. I was just drawing your stance to its’ logical end. It would be nice to tax the government tho, tho some would argue you do every time you drive on a road, etc.
Reasonable ways decided by whom though? Are individuals property up to what others decide? If the owner of the house and the criminal breaking in own themselves shouldnt they be responsible for their own actions? So if the criminals preferable behaviour is denial of property doesnt this allow the owner of the house to deny the criminals property (body) in self defense i.e kill him. The criminal is accepting this by the very fact his preferable behaviour is the denial of property. It’s not something I would do personally though if I was the owner of the house unless my life or my families life is in danger.
I would argue outright killing one is not justified as the punishment does not fit the crime. Maybe kill a killer, but a petty theif? Imo, that’s excessive use of force.
Self ownership isnt real? who owns me or you?
Not everything has to be owned
If it does it wouldnt be a society I would want to live in! I want to live in a society where the human mind and the non-aggression principle reigns supreme. I wouldnt want to be walking through a field on a nice sunny day to get shot for trespassing. If someone steals a stamp or an apple I wouldnt wish to kill them but at worst make them pay back what they stole if I don’t feel like their reasons are justified. i would have no problem with a starving person stealing my apple in fact i’d love to give it to him.
That would be still universality. To make them pay back what they took. Or pay back the value of what they took. What I was talking about earlier I was thinking of a criminal breaking into a home and putting the occupants at danger. Stealing a stamp is not putting the owners life at danger. Hmm but what if he needs that stamp to buy himself a meal?
I’m not saying that you can’t defend yourself and your family, my issue was with the fact that some people were arguing that you can shoot an intruder in the back; which indicates that it wasn’t self defense, since the intruders back was turned.
Private property is the basis of our society, not ever society - the amazonian tribes are an example of this. And to say that tresspassing private property is equivalent of tresspassing someones life, you are equating property to life: property=life. Which is nonsense.
No, it doesn’t. Yes, they do.
You think you’re so clever and classless and free, but you’re still fucking peasants as far as I can see.
-John Lennon
It does not. Exchange can occur with ownership, but it isn’t necessary for ownership. You’re working from a flawed premise, a fallacy of composition.
Here is a good reading on Guns.
http://vaguninfo.com/documents/GunFacts5-0-press.pdf
There are other sources saying it’s not true, but those sources fail to admit that in the absence of individual firearm ownership, there will be more criminal behavior via knives.
I read that gun deaths are down in the U.K, but you’re 2x as likely to be stabbed in UK than you are to be shot in US.
Even if the absence of gun control legislation makes us less safe, it’s still not ethical to have it anyway. Society can never be 100% safe, but we’re far safer without gun control legislation than we would be with it. Plus a majority of people who are victims of firearm violence are criminals themselves anyway. Just about every time I hear on the local news about someone being shot, it’s between two violent criminals.
No, it doesn’t. Yes, they do.
You think you’re so clever and classless and free, but you’re still fucking peasants as far as I can see.
-John Lennon
Tho I aprreciate a little John Lennon as much as the next guy… Stolen proprty cannot be legitimate property, or else there’s no point in a property system in the first place.
And property necessary implies exchangeability, or else property doesn’t necessarily lead to the market… which is what I see people say daily on this website. I provided 3 different definitions to back up my claim…
You’re right that stolen property cannot be legitimate. That all comes down to what is “legitimate”. Ready to go through the looking glass?
Check your premises please. This is one of those times where understanding AE would be helpful when trying to share ideas.