Re: Brainpolice's statements in "You are free to leave..."

[nirgrahamUK]

@Brainpolice

Because, otherwise, the power of an individual to shoot someone on their property is completely arbitrary, and this begs the question of the application and context of the NAP.

no, its not completely arbitrary. it would be completely arbitrary if there was no reason for doing it. but there is a reason. the reason is the trespass.

@Brainpolice

If there are zero qualifiers to the use of force on my property, then I could assault and murder whoever I want just on the basis that it’s my property that I assaulted and murdered them on.

this obviously sounds much the worse for not having a trespasser tresspassing.

to be intellectually honest i would think you would need to write

If there are zero qualifiers to the use of force on my property BEYOND someone trespassing on my property, then I could assault and murder whoever I want just on the basis that it’s my property that I assaulted and murdered them on AND THEY WERE ON IT<<

@Brainpolice

The fact that you have property doesn’t make other people’s personal sovereignty and right to life suddenly become irrelevant.

but the fact that they trespass on the said property might influence the dynamic?

@Brainpolice

So the point is, how can one take such an absolutist position on violence in defense of property without undermining libertarian principles and risking an inconsistancy in the application of the NAP?

well, it doesnt compromise libertarian position, which involves understanding what property righhts are, and not initiating aggression on them. you are wanting to add in more,. surely the inconsitency being introduced is the outlawing of the maximum force, on no grounds! beyond that there is an opinion htat states the tresspass is petty, on a scale of trespass. Its almost like there is no trespass, and then theres little tresspass, and then theres real big trespass. and its only the latter that is a problem to be countered with extreme force

.

@Brainpolice

I never implied that. However, I would argue that a zealous devotion to revenge and too hasty of a preferance to pull the trigger inherently will start to undermine libertarian principles.

this might be true but this utilitarian consequence thinking is a dead end or red herring. to paraphrase you are complaining.“what of our beautiful society if people are everywhere training guns from their windows and picking of loose stepping passerbys?'”

which can be ridiculed by extension, “if we dont insist on food being distributed to everyone, how can we assure that everyone gets to have food?”

the fact that its possible doesnt mean that its entailed, and it doesnt mean that it should be countered with aggression…

@Brainpolice

I’m argueing that the landowner is not exempt from the NAP’s prohibition on assault and murder just because they have property.

i would find it easier to debate with you if you suggested things like, you were arguing that landowners arent exempt from NAP’s prohibition on useing force and killing. because to me NAP doesnt have this blanket prohibiot, it just prohibits initiation of force. unlaweful killing would be murder. but we are discussing if the killing is murder or not. so dont try to beat me by switching in words that implicity argue your case for you :-p