Give up, I’ve asked countless times and he’s not answered my questions.
In that case, why not just kill the person who steals a 5c bubblegum from your store then? Aren’t they also “compromising” your ability to live by reducing your income?
Seems like the black and white fallacies again, where something either is or it isn’t. That’s not how the world really works. Things are proportional and fuzzy, not absolute. Someone partially “compromising” your ability to live doesn’t give you the right to completely compromise their ability to live.
more details about the shop. inventories have run low and there is only one product containing sugar remaining. a piece of bubblgegum whose market price in nearby stores is 5c. the shopowner has just realised he’s moments away from going into diabetic shock and heads towards the shelf where he knows the last piece of bubble gum to be. he spots a thief making for the bubblegum.
posing a question the other way, most of us could ‘survive’ the loss of a finger. does this limit the degree of violence we might use to protect ourselves from a notorious finger slicer?
I fail to see the point of debating sophists who only show they deranged view of the world and lack of moral sense.
The sophists have repeated ad-nauseam that trespassers have no right to life. They’ve not provided any proof for that, just asserted it.
This sums the issue up nicely
Why ? Because deranged people believe that libertarianism and non-aggression entail killing customers if you feel like it. And no, there NO subjectivism in such a political system…only sheer madness.
Yes but what if it’s not a life threatening case? Should the store owner shoot the 5 cent thief dead on the spot if all he stands to lose is 5 cents? I think the two sides are talking past each other in these recurring hypotheticals. I will say that yes, you should kill a trespasser, thief, murderer etc if they are threatening your life.
Should a person in a free society not be punished for immediately killing a 5 cent bubble gum thief on the spot?
If there is absolutely NO proportionality, as some people have said, then once you have violated ANYONE’s property in ANY way, then ANYONE can legitimately murder you, rape you, make you a slave for life (if we accept that third parties can defend others’ property).
Exactly. And that would be a reductio-ad-absurdum of the sophists’ position. The irony is, nirgrahamUK pretended that believing in proportionality is an article of faith, whereas denying proportionality means you don’t believe in logic. Since nirgrahamUK disregards logic, he’s ony left with faith. He has faith that he’s justified in killing any trespasser if he feels like it.
And yet you are obsessed with it. Lack the ability to withdraw from engaging it.
How can you have proportionality, and honestly and sincerely believe in a subjective price system? The sticker on the gum might say 5 cents, but when it could save the life of a diabetic, one could argue it’s value is equal to one human life. In a market economy, even a human life has a price.
Whew! Thank you for responding to that.
And on that note, let’s go another round…
Say the shop owner in question routinely asks his customer why they are purchasing from him. The customer is question says, “I’m going to die in the next five minutes if I don’t eat this product.”. The shop keeper raises his brow and says, “One-thousand dollars.”.
“Outrage! The sticker price says $5! This is madness!”
“Hey man, you want it, buy it, if not, don’t.”
The would-be customer drops to the floor and dies short of his projected five minutes due to an anger-induced stroke.
Did the shop owner cause the death of the would-be customer? Is he obligated to sell his good for the price advertised? Is he obligated to lower his price until the would-be customer can afford it, including for free?
Are you obligated to keep on posting nonsense ?
You should be thankful he does.
I thought this was a great article, and particularly timely to boot.
Wow, just wow. These people are openly endorsing the logical implications of this ridiculous view - which is defending the cold blood murder of children for stepping on someone’s lawn. If none of the observers can see what’s wrong with that, I don’t know what else to say but that you’re merely looking for an excuse for psychopathy and have latched onto libertarianism as a method for doing so. All reason has essentially been abandoned at such a point.
Thankyou, and the bubble gum example is straight from Rothbard.
Or not, whether or not they’re correct or not, you’re just being silly now.
This has been conveniently avoided, despite being pointed out endlessly. All that these people have are misleading appeals to subjectivity, which seems to be based on a misunderstanding of the subjective theory of value that is superimposed onto moral questions.
No, I am not being silly. The logical implication of this view is the legitimization of every kind of psychopathy under the sun so long as the owner is the psychopath.
Like other questions, no?
No, the questions you asked are based on misnomers that were clarified long before you even asked the questions.