Nielsio:
Marko:
OK, not really. I am not a shopkeeper. But if I were, I might shoot bubblegum thieves - under certain conditions. And it has nothing to do with any signs posted at the entrance.
This problem was brought to attention here and discussed here.
Rather than derail the first topic or necromance the second, degraded one, I am going to say it here.
Consider this scenario. A shopkeeper spots a bubblegum thief. He locks the entrance door and confronts the thief. He demands the thief relinquish the bubblegum. The thief refuses. The shopkeeper threatens to take the bubblegum by force. The thief points out that he is twice the size of the shopkeeper. The shopkeeper produces a firearm and threatens to shoot the thief, if he does not immediately surrender the bubblegum. The thief refuses to. The shopkeeper shoots the thief (in the leg) and then takes his bubblegum from the wounded thief.
Can anybody honestly object to this? You may find it distasteful of the shopkeeper to care so much about his bubblegum and I myself would certainly prefer to live in a place where shopkeepers were not willing to do this, but there is nothing that can be done against a shopkeeper in these circumstances in a court of law. To claim the shopkeeper’s shooting is not justified, is not libertarian it is Tolstoyan.
Only read till here.
The shooting is unnecessarily violent. You will incur more costs from the shooting than from retrieving the bubblegum. I would say it’s reckless endangerment for the neighborhood and would report you to get a bad rating.
Context is also important. In a modern society there are far better ways of dealing with such a thief, and the decision to lock the door and demand-or-shoot would be especially reckless. In a more primitive society (but still libertarian) people will take justice more in their own hands and be rougher; they have to.
In general though I think it’s psychopathic to shoot a bubble gum thief. This is not how you create a safe society nor a wealthy society (in general nor for individual business owners).
Don’t know; there’s always the whole deterrent factor to consider. Consequences are an important part of a safe and wealthy society.
And this is the exact problem with Rothbardian rationalism. You guys will never stop quibbling over these sorts of questions until you realise that you can’t answer them. You don’t know what the consequences of a particular legal structure will. Nor do I, but I will hazard a guess that any formal institutional structure that allows a store owner to shoot bubble gum thieves won’t be adhered to for too long, and thankfully so.
Explain to me how a human being will never answer such questions when the thread is obviously humans answering such a question.