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

[hayekianxyz]

@Brainpolice

Your concern has already been addressed pages back. Your questions are misleading because they assume I’m opposing self-defense when I’m not. The scenarios you bring up aren’t the kind of scenarios I’m talking about.

Well answer them.

I’ll ask again: if I live in downtown Freetown and all the houses nearby have been broken into recently, I hear somebody breaking into mine, do I have the right to shoot? Yes, or no?

And as for the flagpole situation, if I am hanging on a flag pole and there if a house nearby do I have the right to break the window to climb through and save myself? Yes or no?

If you would like to point out how they are misleading, go ahead.

[hayekianxyz]

@Juan

Answer the questions.

The king has spoken. King of the trolls, that is.

I never did hear of any comedians from Argentina, until now of course.

[Juan]

@nirgrahamUK

@GilesStratton

Secondly, am I right in thinking that if somebody is hanging on a flagpole outside my window, do they have the right to break my window to save themselves? Am I right in thinking that your position is that they do since the right to life and liberty comes above that of property?

whilst in raw anarchy, No, they have not the right to break the window. but in a similar market law scenario as described above the landowner might have previously obliged himself to show some degree of tolerance.

The point is that, although the trespassers DON’T have the right to trespass (duh), you DON’T have the right to kill them either. It’s called PROPORTIONALITY and it has nothing to do with previous contracts or PDAs.

[nirgrahamUK]

@Juan

@nirgrahamUK

@GilesStratton

Secondly, am I right in thinking that if somebody is hanging on a flagpole outside my window, do they have the right to break my window to save themselves? Am I right in thinking that your position is that they do since the right to life and liberty comes above that of property?

whilst in raw anarchy, No, they have not the right to break the window. but in a similar market law scenario as described above the landowner might have previously obliged himself to show some degree of tolerance.

The point is that, although the trespassers DON’T have the right to trespass (duh), you DON’T have the right to kill them either. It’s called PROPORTIONALITY and it has nothing to do with previous contracts or PDAs.

so it comes down to a matter of faith juan?

i believe that if one sets oneself the task of deducing a rational moral system, that you will get out that NAP and private property are necessary and sufficient.

you have a different understanding. that somehow a further law of proportionality would be concluded.

i think i could try to sketch out how my two axioms are derived from such an endeavour.

if you cant do the same for your 3 axioms. I am not likely to be persuaded.

if you say that the 3rd axiom is simply intuited self evident you have a faith, and we should end further talk

[nirgrahamUK]

@Thedesolateone

I haven’t read the last few posts, but:

If trespass is a crime, like assault, then it should be dealt with in the way that crimes like assault are dealt with. Trespass on its own, is (in my opinion) not as bad as assault, and is not even as bad as theft; theft is the illegitimate appropriation of property while trespass is merely the effective renting of property without consent or payment. Unless we are to decide that victims of thieves have complete control over the course of punishment or restitution handed to the thieves who wronged them, then we cannot argue that the victims of trespass have that right. Surely the punishment handed to a trespasser would be wrung out between the two individuals’ justice agencies, or at a mutually accepted court - the victim does not have the right to summarily punish the transgressor.

I believe the analogy is sound, but I am open to criticism.

my opinion is that a universal ethics does not require theories of punishment or restitution. it merely requires hard objective rules which can be applied universally, that dont lead to contradiction, and concern agents. that say this is wrong, and this is not wrong. what is permissable and what is not,the issue of punishment or restitution can be seperated from the act of self defence, by time.

by definition self-defence is happening concurrently with the crime. its not about victim summarily punishing transgressors, but dealing with the live transgression in the moment of the transgression.

[Juan]

@nirgrahamUK

so it comes down to a matter of faith juan?

No, it comes to down to you not understanding that proportionality is part of the NAP.

[nirgrahamUK]

@Juan

@nirgrahamUK

so it comes down to a matter of faith juan?

No, it comes to down to you not understanding that proportionality is part of the NAP.

well thanks a bunch for teaching me that proportionality is part of the NAP.

although you didnt teach it to me.

you just offered it to me as a possiblity

[hayekianxyz]

@Juan

The point is that, although the trespassers DON’T have the right to trespass (duh), you DON’T have the right to kill them either. It’s called PROPORTIONALITY and it has nothing to do with previous contracts or PDAs.

If he would die on the flagpole would he have the right to break the window to get into my house?

[Juan]

@GilesStratton

@Juan

The point is that, although the trespassers DON'T have the right to trespass (duh), you DON'T have the right to kill them either. It's called PROPORTIONALITY and it has nothing to do with previous contracts or PDAs.

If he would die on the flagpole would he have the right to break the window to get into my house?

Your question is already answered. Please read what I wrote.

[nirgrahamUK]

you wrote that although he does not have the right to break the window to save his life from falling, yet ge does have the right to break the window tp save his life from falling so long as he acknowledges he doesnt have such a right, and pays suitable resititution. and is not killed.

anotherway of saying this is that so long as he provides restitution he has the right to break into windows to save his life.

despite him not having such a right.

ok. my head hurts. juan. you hurt me

[Juan]

@nirgrahamUK

you wrote that although he does not have the right to break the window to save his life from falling, yet ge does have the right to break the window tp save his life from falling so long as he acknowledges he doesnt have such a right, and pays suitable resititution. and is not killed.

You are confused. Again, the theory is not faulty. Your understanding of it is.

[nirgrahamUK]

why dont you try to state it, instead of merely implying that you could state it, ‘if you wanted to, which you dont’

(trollish a little?)

[Juan]

@GilesStratton

If he would die on the flagpole would he have the right to break the window to get into my house?

He doesn’t have the right. Whether he breaks the window to save his life or just for fun is irrelevant. Happy now ?

[liberty_student]

@Juan

He doesn’t have the right. Whether he breaks the window to save his life or just for fun is irrelevant. Happy now ?

I’m not happy. Why did you stop being a disruptive troll? I hope BP doesn’t adopt your stance of answering questions, instead of insisting he has already answered them (when the record clearly shows he did not).

I want my old King Juan, Master Troller back! WAH!

/me cries!

[Juan]

@nirgrahamUK

why dont you try to state it, instead of merely implying that you could state it, ‘if you wanted to, which you dont’

Because I already stated it and you parsed it into an incoherent mess. I’m not implying anything. I’m clearly saying that you don’t get it.

you wrote that although he does not have the right to break the window to save his life from falling, yet he does have the right to break the window

But that’s not what I wrote. I’m saying 2+2=4 but you are (willfully?) hearing 2+2=5…

[nirgrahamUK]

by theory of estoppel, if the agents admits that they did things that they had no right to do, on what grounds can they insist the landlord refrain from doing what he has ‘no right to do’ kill.

doesnt estoppel mess up the admitted trespasser from being able to prohibit the landlord taking violent recourse to the occurring trespass?

[nirgrahamUK]

another way of saying this is that the trespasser admits having flouted non-aggression axiom, and private property axiom, and if ther was a propotionality axiom he would have flouted that too since his trespass exceed the non crimes that werent prioir done to him by infinite magnitude.

hence by estoppel he has no recourse to criticise when others do the same, and reflect their attention to him

[Juan]

@nirgrahamUK

by theory of estoppel, if the agents admits that they did things that they had no right to do, on what grounds can they insist the landlord refrain from doing what he has ‘no right to do’ kill.

Nobody has a right to kill, except in self-defense – full stop.

What other agents do is irrelevant. The fact that the a trespasser violates the right of the owner doesn’t meant the owner can violate the right to life of the trespasser.

doesnt estoppel mess up the admitted trespasser from being able to prohibit the landlord taking violent recourse to the occurring trespass?

I’m not sure what you mean by estoppel. And I couldn’t care less about 99% of so called legal doctrine anyway.

[nirgrahamUK]

@Juan

Nobody has a right to kill, except in self-defense – full stop.

i wasnt talking about killing outside of self-defense was i?

[liberty_student]

@Juan

Nobody has a right to kill, except in self-defense – full stop.

The question remains, when does defense of property become defense of life? If you steal from my garden that I use to feed my family, isn’t that in effect, trying to compromise my ability to live?