a suggestion for juan, vis-a-vis you and the other guys on this thread (i will not be declaring my own varied and superinteresting opinions :-))
could you explain to the other dudes examples of what else would need to be added in to the scenario to make death-by-shopper legitimate? (or if there is no such scenario)
this might help people understand each other
The thing is, the thief couldn’t theoretically object to being robbed, because that’s what he’s doing. But the thief is not killing people, so he can object to being killed.
It seems that…you fail.
Actually, he’s NOT justified, regardless of what the clerk thinks. But what the clerk thinks does matter as well. True, it may not matter to people like you who think that providing a service which was un-asked for, un-valued, and not accepted, is ‘charity’…
Now I think we are getting into different perspectives on what really happened. This is when a model dies. A good analogy to bring us this far in our intellectual exercise, but now the questions delve more into what the scenario, the model does not provide anymore.
Not saying you are a logical positivist at all, just making a general point. The logical positivist falls into the conundrum of not factoring in the individual. The same argument Austrians make against Keynesianism. The latter leave out the consumer in their so called models. We don’t know what the shopper could or could not do based on skill perhaps.
For instance, was the shopper a very confident gun slinger. If so, then maybe the shopper could have tried to ask the thief to put the knife down, and then the thief could have been proportioned what the victim wanted. Now does the shopper offer a value to be compensated in this ending of the situation? I’d have to think about that. I don’t know. Maybe others do.
Also the thief having a knife could have been very talented and the shopper doesn’t know how skilled the thief is with a knife. The shopper kills in self-defense cause when the tough moment comes it could be a shopper or thief. Shopper chooses shopper.
Which brings up another aspect to the scenario that we don’t know. How close was the shopper to the thief? How close was the thief to the shop owner?
This was a good model. A good analogy of a possible scenario. But like all models it brings us only so close to exactly being in the shop, maybe even one of the people in the scenario. So if we want to expand upon the original model/analogy of this thread we can do that to help us reason more about this situation. We each are bringing in our own perspective as to what is happening in the shop trying to stay as close to original model as possible.
So to answer your question more simply: I don’t think the original analogy that began this thread offers enough to answer your question. That’s what I think. Maybe others have a differing opinion. Maybe not.
Well, it seems sensible to me that the shopper is justified in killing in order to save his life, or to save the life of the clerk, if asked to.
Basically this looks like another application of proportionality to me.
Agreed. We don’t know all the details.
Without knowing more I will say this: My gut always tells me that once someone has committed violence they are opening themselves up, both practically and ethically, to what ever they get in return…
Come on now, lets hear it…
Bingo. And the last discussion prompted a disingenuous blog post on Polycentric Order, followed up by an equally disingenous blog post on the C4SS blog, not to mention at least one hysterical YouTube video about the evil people who would shoot children. So let’s try to avoid that happening again rather than stirring up the internet libertarian drama-lammas.
@all, these arguments are messy because they are open ended, and every differing interpretation leads to more misunderstanding. As Nir pointed out, it might be wise to clarify what are the absolute facts of the scenario, and then deduce responsibility and libertarian action from that. Personally, I believe it is not easy to clearly identify intent, only action, and unless the shopkeeper has accepted responsibilty for my security when I am in his store, then I think it’s not unreasonable that I would defend myself if someone violated property rights while displaying aggression with a weapon in my vicinity.
It’s kinda obvious actually, just as it’s obvious that proportionality is part of libertarian philosophy. Even Kinsella agrees ? Proportionality is not the labor theory of value, you know…
I didn’t know there was a video about it =] I remember discussing the topic with people who had ‘funny’ ideas about shooting children and customers though. Now, arguing that natural law enables the execution of trespassers might give libertarianism a bad name…but it’s not my fault is it ?
Holy crap @ the number of posts this got while I was away :o
Suppose the robber killed the clerk and then started running away. The shopper then clobbers him to death. Did the shopper, assuming he was in no danger, have the right to hit the robber now? I think the core question is whether the Non-Agression Principle allows for outsider vigilantism or not.
Who’s property were they on?
It does not as a principle (as I understand it). It may still happen but that is separate from the NAP.
The clerk’s.
Robbery involves threatening to use physical force to confiscate property. Now it is not clear whether or not the robber intended to use deadly force or not. Nor is it clear whether or not the shopper intended to kill the robber. Nor is it obvious that the shopper should be liable for damages if he didn’t intend to kill. Nor is it obvious whether or not the clerk’s position effects the innocence or guilt of the shopper. But I think it’s reasonable to assume that the shopper didn’t intend to kill the robber, that at the time he believed that the clerk wanted assistance. I also think that any reasonable judge would assume the worst of the robber’s intentions given the situation and assume the best of the shopper’s intentions. And I think that the shopper would be aquitted for any charges if he has a reasonable judge and the assumptions hold.
Well, if the person is highly skilled in martial arts, maybe the person knows how to neutralize the robber effectively with no risk of killing him, but that is highly unlikeable.
The moment the robber gives the person the right to react, the reaction can perfectly be fatal. You are falling into the trap of trying to quantify how much damage the person can inflict. It is nonsense to say “in such scenario, the person is allowed to give 5 punches, 3 kicks and 2 arm locks”, and, afterall, a single punch can already be fatal. Also remember that in the heat of the moment the person does whatever his/her guts tell is the best to do, and since the person ain’t some kind of Steven Seagal, the person will rightfully attack in the most one-hit.-K.O way possible.
Again I’m going to go off perspective.
But I see no difference here between a vigilante and a defender of freedom. The shopper lives in the community. Is a shopper there. This thief has just killed somebody. If the “vigilante” wants to rise to the occasion, then so be it. I don’t see the difference between a guy with a badge and another’s having the self-defense of freedom on his or her mind (the vigilante) for the community/individual. I wouldn’t want to live in a community that allows bandits to come into town, and before I can react I have to call 9-11 only. I wouldn’t want bandits to dictate my place of residence either. The bandit could get away to come back and terrorize again. I see this as a defender of freedom in the face of coercion, even though the danger is not placed upon the vigilante directly it is this danger of coercion that this defender of freedom is rising up against.
This is an interesting question:
I think it can allow for “outsider” vigilanteism because the vigilante can always claim to be under threat if a violent robber is loose in the neighborhood.
Clobbering the thief is simply an act of self-defense on the part of the other customer. Self-defense is perfectly consistent with the non-aggression principle.
No. The clerk does not have a valid claim. In my opinion, a person who threatens to kill or uses a deadly weapon to coerce an other person in an otherwise peaceful environment is a wild animal. Everybody in the vicinity has good reason to feel threatened. So, the customer who clobbers the theif is arguably acting in self-defense.
What the clerk wants is irrelevent. I think it is reasonable for the customers to assume that they are entering a safe environment. In fact, if the clerk objects to the clobbering, the clerk is effectively aiding and abetting a criminal.
Well, let’s assume he didn’t.
I really don’t see why that’s true. As a general rule, claiming that you didn’t intend to do X doesn’t exempt you from paying damages caused by doing X, does it ? You lend me your car and I accidentally smash it. Do I have to pay ?
Agreed. That one is more complex.
Actually, a judge who did that wouldn’t be reasonable but prejudiced. And the whole business of guessing and judging intentions rests on shaky grouds, IMO.
That’s exactly the reason why the department of war got renamed to “department of defense”. Besides the NAP is subjective. It is anything I want it to be…or so you boldly claim…
Juan, if you’re game, I would like to discuss subjective/objective with you. I’m more curious at the moment as to your definition of “objective”? I’m not looking to repeat what we’ve discussed in the past for I remember, but maybe I haven’t delved enough into what definitions you adhere to.
*Edition: I would like to add “It is anything I want it to be…” is a statement of freedom, which freedom is good correct? Doesn’t mean ones desires will be fulfilled, but free-will is the inalienable effort.
I generally agree. But this is because a person should always bear the costs of their own actions and should not be allowed to externalize them onto other. This does not necessarily hold true during an assault. Under circumstances where an aggression is currently taking place, if there is uncertainty as to how far the aggressor will go with the assault, a justice seeker should be let off the hook if he uses more than proportional force. This is because it is the aggressor which created the situation and the uncertainty and he should have to bear the full cost of the uncertainty rather than others imo.
This does not mean that a shopkepper could shoot a kid in the process of stealing candy. It does mean that he could shoot a criminal who stuck him up with a prop gun. Even though the criminal didn’t intend to use lethal force in this hypothetical scenario, he certainly created a situation where the shopkeeper believed he might, and so should bear the full cost rather than the shopkeeper.
Judging motive and intent is always difficult to do. But it is a significant component of justice. Any reasonable judge will look at the character of the two men and of course assume the worst of the criminal and the best of the gentleman.