More babbling. You just want to believe that a trespasser gives up all his rights but that’s not the case.
As per your own definition : never.
Are you serious…or just trolling ? So, you will come up with some extremely unlikely scenario which might let you conflate property with life ? What’s the point ? Why not better discuss the killing of children and customers in cold blood which is, according to Mr. Waite, justified by libertarian theory ?
you just think violating rights does not prejudice rights.
Yes it does. Proportionally.. I guess you’re the kind of person who would hang children for stealing an apple ?
I’m serious. Now pay attention.
Stealing my crop from my garden is unlikely? My time spent planting and maintaining my garden, which is used to feed my family and I, and someone steals from it and you call that unlikely?
Because you are avoiding answering what is a very real question. Why is someone stealing my food or shelter (property) not compromising my life, and thus protection of said property constitute self-defense? Can you survive without shelter, food and clothes?
You can’t honestly answer the example, because it exposes you for the charlatan of ideas that you are.
To fan the flames: Law and Ethics–A Great Divorce?
?
what did i say about market law, vs, the world without market produced law?
yes its true some people use the words morality, and ethics in the sense of positive guides to behaviour, act like this. in this situation this course of action is optimal morally, or ethically.
others, myself included, by morality mean a system of rules by which actions can be classified to wrong/not allowed, not-wrong/allowed *where the rules are universalisable for all rational agents (moral candidates)
for us, the open question of how a situation should be dealt with (in the positive sense), is best left for the individual, and we would expect that in ‘good’ societies, these individuals choices will be informed by the codes and laws thay they voluntarily bind themselves to.
what do you think libertystudent?
That’s not only rational, but I believe it is also morally defensible.
I’m for non-violence, as much as possible. I would never shoot a child (or anyone) maybe even if it was fatal to me to not do so. But that doesn’t change the reality, that our property is an extension of ourselves. If we own our bodies, we own our food. If we own our bodies, we own our shelter. When something challenges our ownership with aggression, we are permitted to respond in defense. we might respond with deadly force. If someone is going to assault someone I am defending (like a family member) I might use too much force and kill them. An arbitrary legal system that makes defense a crime or not only based on motive, is not a legal system I would likely participate in.
In a libertarian world, people will not wander onto property they do not own without permission. Fences make for good neighbors.
Irrelevant. The point is whether you think that libertarian principles include shooting trespassers in cold blood or not.
Yes, and the point is whether killing people in cases in which self-defense is not at stake is morally wrong or not.
no, in all the cases we have discussed not one have them has been on any other issue than the use of force in self -defence, this is what you have sought to limit. its no good saying that they arent self-defense. when they are clearly defense of property.
where have i suggested killing people out side of self-defense? nowhere.
in a situation where a landlord has not voluntarily given up his right to apply whatever level of force he sees fit in self-defencem, he is not morally wrong to kill a child that is trespassing. although it is an ugly act i would not support. if i oppossed it by an embargo on my interactions with such a landlord and his supporters then this would be my free choice ,conforming to my tastes, and would not be done on the basis of breach of libertarian law.
What cases are you, exactly, talking about ? Surely you don’t mean the cases brought up by Daniel Waite ?
Oh my. Except in the case in which the child is trying to kill the landlord, the landlord has NO right to kill the child. And in reality whether he’s the landlord or not is WHOLLY IRRELEVANT. The point is whether a person’s life is being objectively threatened or not.
If your life is being threatened then you can use as much force as needed to stop the threat. If you’re going to shoot a child who steps in your lawn, you better be able to OBJECTIVELY PROVE that your killing was needed to prevent the child from killing you.
there is no such objective proof possible, even if the child walks to you holding a knife. even if the child picks up a gun. even if the chgildp icks up a gun, fires it, but doesnt hit you. you would neet to prove the counterfactual. that if you had not killed him, he would have killed you. impossible as you dont know what would have happened if you hadnt killed him. and if not him. not anyone. in your framework neither aggressors nor defenders can legitimately kill. so inpractice it is the agressors that will
Then stop picking stupid fights with me ? Why would you argue for something you don’t believe in ? Except to troll, that is.
juan, i challenge you that your position is as one who has in mind a form of market produced law, and wishes to say that that is libertarian law. in fact this can not be. the whole reason why we need the free market to produce law is to ‘solve’ these troublesome dilemas.
the argument is not about our preferences for how people should behave, and how they should treat each other. its about what is wright and what is wrong, black and what, unviersal law. ethics.
the argument you want to have about ‘well what statutues of proportion should free market lawmakers propose’ is a fine one worth having, but you have to admit that its not already implicit in the liberterian law. It needs to be taken out of the universal and put into the concrete societies and cultures who lawmakers try to sell laws to. There is a divide between the natural law, and the man made law that we would do well to institute atop it.
Ha ha ha. Well, thanks for confessing that you’re a subjectivist. I’ m not wasting any more time with somebody who…has… faith ?
Misrepresentation.
Too bad that, since there’s no way to objectively prove anything, universal laws are not possible.
Or else your understanding of libertarian law is flawed.
No. There’s no such thing as arbitrary ‘market law’. Either we stick to natural, libertarian law, or we don’t. The ‘market’ (people, you know) can apply principles to certain situations, but not come up with any set of arbitrary principles.
/me agrees