Scenario and question about initiation of force and retribution.

[MatthewF]

@Juan

This shouldn’t be controversial. If you think that what you did for me was helpful to me, but I disagree, I’m afraid I have the last word. If the clerk is a pacifist, you’re not helping him by killing in his name are you ?

Again: Are we talking about being “helpful” or defending the initiation of force?

[Juan]

Sorry, I don’t know what you mean. If ‘helpful’ is not the correct word, replace it. I think my point is clear anyway.

[Juan]

@sicsempertyrannis

So Juan, why would anyone in your ideal “libertarian” world want to risk stopping a thief, rapist, etc if they would simply be prosecuted if the perpetrator got killed in the process?

Not sure what point you’re making. Do you think that summary executions make sense ?

[MatthewF]

@Juan

Well, the clerk has no claim in that sense since the shopper did not damage the clerk’s person or property. On the other hand the shopper has no justification for what he did since he was not personally threatened and nobody asked him to do anything.

Your point seems to be that 1) the shopper was unjustified because he wasn’t threatened and 2) he wasn’t asked for help.

My point was that 1) he saw someone else being threatened. Isn’t that enough justification 2) If not, maybe he fellt personally threatened by the presence of the knife and the display of the willingness to use it violently 3) Who cares if he was asked for help

[wilderness]

@MatthewF

Does the fact that the thief was holding a knife factor into the principle ?

@Juan

I’m asking as well. You take for granted that thieves armed with a knife can be summarily executed ?

The thief shouldn’t have pulled out the knife and threaten to use force. The thief made a bad call.

[Juan]

@MatthewF

1. the shopper was unjustified because he wasn’t threatened

Yes, that’s all.

My point was that 1) he saw someone else being threatened. Isn’t that enough justification

I don’t know (but I highly doubt it). So, again, people armed with knives can be summarily executed ?

3. Who cares if he was asked for help

Well, it’s part of the conversation. Who cares what you think anyway ?

[Juan]

@wilderness

The thief shouldn’t have pulled out the knife and threaten to use force. The thief made a bad call.

Of course - I don’t deny that. Yet you didn’t answer my question.

[DanielMuffinburg]

1. the shopper was unjustified because he wasn’t threatened

What if the robber was, incidentally, blocking the exit? (Or am adding to the scenario?)

[wilderness]

@Juan

So, again, people armed with knives can be summarily executed ?

Just don’t threaten to use a knife on somebody to get money. If somebody, like this theif does, then that person is coercive. The self-defense exists for free-will. Thief threatened free-will. Obviously the shopper saw the event go down and he or she acted in self-defense against coercion. The coercion is present. Now self-defend.

[Juan]

Just don’t threaten to use a knife on somebody to get money. If somebody, like this theif does, then that person is coercive. The self-defense exists for free-will. Thief threatened free-will. Obviously the shopper saw the event go down and he or she acted in self-defense against coercion. The coercion is present. Now self-defend.

?

[wilderness]

@Juan

@wilderness

The thief shouldn’t have pulled out the knife and threaten to use force. The thief made a bad call.

Of course - I don’t deny that. Yet you didn’t answer my question.

Yes, indeed, you gave a question. What do you mean? Can you rephrase the question?

[wilderness]

@Juan

Just don’t threaten to use a knife on somebody to get money. If somebody, like this theif does, then that person is coercive. The self-defense exists for free-will. Thief threatened free-will. Obviously the shopper saw the event go down and he or she acted in self-defense against coercion. The coercion is present. Now self-defend.

?

I guess was slowing down my talk.

Point is, don’t threaten to coerce somebody with a knife and try to suppress free-will.

[Juan]

Point is, don't threaten to coerce somebody with a knife and try to suppress free-will.

?

[wilderness]

@Juan

Point is, don’t threaten to coerce somebody with a knife and try to suppress free-will.

?

lol… I see that button works.

[wilderness]

@wilderness

@Juan

Point is, don’t threaten to coerce somebody with a knife and try to suppress free-will.

?

lol… I see that button works.

This isn’t an endurance game, ‘who has the more posts’. If it was, then filling them with a “?” would make you a winner.

[Juan]

@wilderness

Yes, indeed, you gave a question. What do you mean? Can you rephrase the question?

What I am asking is if weapon carrying thieves can be executed summarily.

[wilderness]

@Juan

@wilderness

Yes, indeed, you gave a question. What do you mean? Can you rephrase the question?

What I am asking is if weapon carrying thieves can be executed summarily.

If the weapon is being used to coerce, then yes. What else is a weapon for? To kill or injure. You or them type scenario.

[Stephen_Forde]

@Juan

@Stephen Forde

The shopper assumed, wrongly, that the clerk would want his assistence.

@Stephen Forde

It’s the shopper’s fault. But he doesn’t need the clerk’s permission to begin with, so it’s irrelevant to determining the guilt of the shopper.

Well, if it’s irrelevant why did you bring it up ?

For clarity. So that we understand what we are disagreeing over and where we agree so that we more rapidly hone in on the key issues.

@Juan

But yes, it is irrelevant. The fact is that the shopper’s life was not threatened. He killed a man because he wanted to play hero, and was bad at it. It’s his fault. Now, I imagine that when people act like right wing nuts, you believe they are absolved from individual responsibility ?

What absolves this gentleman is that the robber or any of his agents can make a principled argument against him wielding deadly force, since the robber has already demonstrated that he thinks this is a perfectly acceptable norm. Any argument against the gentleman would involve a performative contradiction. And I would still say he’s a hero and the clerk is an ungrateful rass.

@Juan

I don’t see why he needs to be considered an agent of the clerk to be absolved in this scenario.

Well, if the clerk was about to get killed and asked for help, the shopper would have a reason to stop or maybe even kill the thief. But that was not the hypothetical case.

You didn’t answer the challenge. The point is that the shopper is justified whether or not the shop keeper asks for assistance. This was the point I was getting at that you ignored.

@Juan

The shopper would likely argue that he believed the robber would have been willing to use lethal force. Why not take his testimony on face value?

Why take it ? It’s just something you are making up.

OK, maybe it is. But the moment the robber begins the assault, the shopper is justified in using as much force as he believes is necessary to end the assault while it is taking place.

[Stephen_Forde]

@Juan

What I am asking is if weapon carrying thieves can be executed summarily.

While an assault is taking place with a deadly weapon, the answer is yes.

[Juan]

@wilderness

If the weapon is being used to coerce, then yes. What else is a weapon for? To kill or injure. You or them type scenario.

So, threatening a person with a knife gets you death penalty on the spot ? Is there any further justification for that, or is it just self-evident ? I agree that armed robbery is a serious crime, but I’m not sure what libertarian legal system has determined that DIY death penalty is the proper response…