Where? Source please.
I already showed how my perspective on the discussion was met with satisfaction by the OP here.
BP, all you have to do is back up your statements, and I will gladly admit I am wrong, and you are right. Simply quote where I did or said these things and you win. Easy Peasey.
Yes. You can’t just shoot any ‘trespasser’.
Why not?
Am I supposed to wait until he rapes my wife and molests my children before I apply deadly force? By trespassing, hasn’t he already initiated aggression? Or do I have to wait for him to escalate the violence before I can respond?
I agree, it is silly to shoot someone who steps one foot on your property or retrieves a baseball that lands in your yard. But if there is any possibility of escalation, I can and will put a man down before risking harm to myself, my loved ones or my property.
You’re just assuming that that is the intent or scenario, when that isn’t the kind of scenario that we are talking about when we question the legitimacy of violence. We’re not talking about a scenario in which someone presents a clear threat to the life of you or your family. We’re talking about the mere fact that someone is on your property, nothing more. Does the mere fact that someone is on your property, divorced from any context, grant you the right to shoot them? Doesn’t that depend on the context? For example, suppose some kids are sitting on or playing in my lawn. Technically, they’re on my property, so can I just shoot them only based on that fact? Wouldn’t I be a child murderer if I shot them?
What do you mean “source please”? Give me a break. You spun it when YOU introduced the topic to begin with.
Oh, right. We need a clear threat. Like a knife at my daughters’ throat. Then I can get serious about this asshole who walked across my lawn, into my backyard, picked up one of my kids, and then made his intent clear.
There is always a context. Stupid or unobservant people may not grasp it. I’ve worked in parts of the city where one wrong look can get you stabbed. Context is constant. Your ability to perceive it, and perceive it correctly, and then to make the correct judgment call is not.
What is the difference between killing an 80 year old and a child?
Can you shoot a deer that comes onto your property?
I see, so I didn’t actually write what you accused me of saying. Interesting. Certainly not the first time you have made a false claim.
Drop the sarcasm. That’s not my argument, you’re just mocking now.
Wether its an 80 year or old or a child is irrelevant to my point. I was not making a point about children’s rights, my example just so happened to have involved children. The fact that children are used in the example is incidental, it is not relevant to the point I was making. Replace children with adults in the scenario and my basic point remains.
What does that question have to do with what we’re talking about? Anyways, human beings are not deer.
eyeroll Oh, give me a break. That you constantly attempt to insinuate dishonesty on my part over dumb little irrelevant details is a dishonest tactic of your own. My claim is not false. You introduced this irrelevant topic to the thread, and immediately spun it to imply your own mischaracterization of Roderick Long as someone who uses feminism as a litmus test for libertarianism, which is an outright falsehood that you’ve somehow superimposed onto his statements about feminism. You bringing it up in the middle of a completely different disussion just indicates your tendency to troll.
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.
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<<
but the fact that they trespass on the said property might influence the dynamic?
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
.
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…
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
You’re sorta right. Your argument is that there are a bunch of people aimlessly wandering or sprawled on my lawn, and instead of killing them and putting the bodies in my wheelbarrow, I have to ask them nicely to leave, maybe piggyback them to the boundary of my property so they don’t risk a slip and fall, give them $10, thank them for visiting, etc.
Yeah, LS wakes up to find 3 people standing at attention in front of his vegetable garden. Or maybe they are moving. Maybe they are mimes. Even though I am scared of clowns, these mimes seem friendly and benign. Maybe I invite them into my house. And instead of raping me, they clean the toilet, and make me breakfast. I love omelet. They make me an omelet. With mushrooms and cheese. And ham. Gotta have ham.
Weeks later, they are still here. I don’t understand the context, but my toilet has never been cleaner (in fact, I start eating my omelet on the toilet) and my belly fuller. Thank god these contextually deficient Mimes came into my life.
Beats me, you brought up kids.
That remains to be seen. Without any context, you sure are making a lot of assumptions.
I’m not only giving you a break, I am giving you the benefit of the doubt. You made a claim, and I said that if you can back it up, I will bow to your infinite wisdom. You can’t or refuse to back up the claim. What else do I have to do for you? It is impossible to bend over any farther…
Then back it up. You claimed I spun a post. I have asked you and nibbler123456 to indicate where I did so.
It’s infer, not imply. Could you show where I did this?
Dilbert Long. Everything he knows about corporations, he learned from reading the funny pages.
I don’t know that it is an outright falsehood. He seemed to indicate that being left-libertarian, meant reclaiming ones heritage from the bogus left. A heritage that includes feminism.
We’ll leave that up to the OP to determine. He’s the one who started the thread, he can clarify if what I wrote is irrelevant to the discussion, or if you are (1) trying to narrowly define the context of the discussion or (2) unable to perceive the depth and breadth of his question.
And you’re a big poopy head. I can name call too.
It is completely arbitrary because anyone at any time can just go “hey, you’re on my property” and cap someone. But merely being on someone’s property is an arbitrary reason to justify the initiation of force. You need more of a specific context than just “there is someone on my property”. The “punishment” of being shot to death isn’t even remotely proportional to the crime of trespassing or loitering. Compared to life vs. death, tresspassing and loitering is a fairly minor matter. Furthermore, I reject the idea that being on someone else’s property means you forfeit your right to life and liberty. It might mean that you have an incentive to generally cooperate and abstain from infringement, but not that you lose all of your rights all of a sudden. A theory of property rights that overtly undermines the right to life and liberty needs to be fixed, otherwise it is going to be hopelessly inconsistant.
It’s implications does undermine libertarianism because you are actually justifying initiations of force or pre-emptive force by misappling property rights theory out of its proper context. Property rights is not a contextless axoim, it is interlinked with other concepts. A properly concieved concept of property rights grants general decision-making power over property, but not in a way that is inconsistant with other people’s rights. It does not grant direct or arbitrary decision-making power over other people. The propertarian justification for violating the NAP, in turn, threatens to sneak statism back in through the back door.
It’s not a utilitarian perspective. I’m not a utilitarian, I’m primarily an ethical anarchist or libertarian anarchist. I’m not making naive statist complaints against anarchism. I’m saying that the traditional concept of revenge undermines the NAP because it justifies ex-post facto violence, and an absolutist and contextless view of violence in defense of property rights also undermines the NAP because it justifies pre-emptive violence.
My entire point is that in these scenarios, it IS the initiation of force that an a contextless absolutist theory of property rights justifies, on the mere basis that someone is on your property. Ex-post facto revenge and pre-emptive force are both forms of the initiation of force.
Bingo. BP seems to be ignoring/missing that facet of the scenario. Trespass is the initial aggression. Period.
Yes. Exactly.
You have definitely identified and stated what I was feeling out earlier. The NAP is “good as is”, and doesn’t require modification. Thank you.
Yay! Dr. Block argued from a similar perspective at the end of his article. Those that would cry out in defense of the original aggressor (the person hanging from the flag pole or the person who broke into the cabin) are not so willing to give up their own wealth to better those with less.
Liberty Student, poignant (and entertaining) as always. Carry on. 
what does revenge have to do with it. you are spinning off into asides. the issue is not whether if someone once trespassed on property then stopped trespassing the property, they could after the trespass is abandoned be shot. but whether it could be allowed to kill them , as an act of opposing their current force with another current force. the issue of proportionality has been held up repeatedly be central tenet of libertarianism, but i cant see where this justification springs from, it seems to be merely an article of faith.
is this problem a semantic one, where we are talking past each other. to me ‘initiation’ means, ‘started’. libertarian law speaks out against ‘initiating violence’, but is silent on the topic of ‘returning violence’.
i ask you, have i been missold on axioms. was it wrong of me to take on board an axiom against initiation of violence. should we rebrand the prohibition, to be one prohibiting violence of any degree higher than any violence formerly initiated. is that your proposal?
merely on your property??? but its not MERELY that. its that they are on your property without permission. you keep writing as if theres a license to slaughter guests.!!!
I’m wondering if BP’s position could be extrapolated to abortion, and the onus falling on the pregnant woman to deliver the baby safely to term after a certain point. As it has been explained to me, a pregnant woman can have an abortion because she is under no obligation to share her body as a vessel with the unborn.
If I can’t violently kick people off my property, then I don’t see how an abortion is justified. Or is this too much of a tangent?
It sounds like you’re calling the property owner who shoots the trespasser the initiator. Is that accurate? If so, do you not understand that trespass is aggression, or are you ignoring that fact?
Aggression is aggression. Any attempt to apply a magnitude to an aggression is a breeding ground for opinion, probably of the majority. At which point you are no longer free.
Now, I’m going to push this as far as I can… Ready for this?
Bob is a shop owner, open for business. You come into Bob’s shop, you pick up items, place them on the counter and wait to hear what your total is. Bob decides your total amounts to a bullet between the eyes. Why? Bob arbitrarily decided to invoke the right to defend his property against trespass.
Now what say you, BP?
I know what I say, I’m NEVER shopping at Bob’s store. Why? Well, on the chance he might off me.
Is Bob a murderer? Not in my view, but I doubt he’ll do well commercially. (Update: I should ask, “Is Bob within his right to kill the trespasser?”, to which I would answer yes. He’s a murderer, but the murder was justified as he was defending his property rights. That said, I still wouldn’t do business with him.)
This is, of course, one scenario. Let’s play with another…
Sue own a shop. However, before you can enter, your must walk up to a window, look over, and if you agree, sign a contract with Sue that says, among other things, that she will not shoot you unless you attempt to inflict harm on her, her customers, her goods or other property she owns. In other words, what happened at Bob’s shop will not happen at hers.
Now there is a contract in play that must also be abided. Sue has forfeited her right to shoot those with whom she has contract simply for trespassing. See how that works? It can be done… I think a world ruled by the NAP would be remarkably different than the one we are in now.
as a question of intellectual history, and the development of ideas.
what is the timeline for when block wrote the controversial flagpole lew rockwell article.
and when was his evictionism idea get generated. cause it dawns on me now that in the block is seemingly adopting proportionality. unless he’s really being sneaky about it, and just saying something that he think libertarians who accept proportionality can swallow…
good illustration daniel. but it may not even be needed if this sentance is true :
Bob is a shop owner, open for business.
because this is an implicit contract for safe passage as a customer on his premises.
maybe?
I see what you’re saying, and I agree from a “common sense” perspective. No one in their right mind is going to open up a shop and then shoot their otherwise non-agressing customers.
But to imply there is some kind of implicit contract… I dunno, that seems sneaky.
Now, if, say, there were a sign on the door that said, please come in, we adhere to the “common sense xyz” principle, THEN I see that as a more concrete and less implicit kind of contract.