Shooting the bubblegum thief: Defending the shopkeeper

[Stephen_Forde]

Rothbard writes:

@pg. 80

Secondly, we may ask: must we go along with those libertarians who claim that a storekeeper has the right to kill a lad as punishment for snatching a piece of his bubble gum? What we might call the “maximalist” position goes as follows: by stealing the bubble gum, the urchin puts himself outside the law. He demonstrates by his action that he does not hold or respect the correct theory of property rights. Therefore, he loses all all of his rights, and the storekeeper is within his rights to kill the lad in retaliation.

Well, let’s hypothesize that the individual in question not a lad, but a fully grown adult, and the consequences of theft are clearly posted at the entrance of the store, but the scenario is otherwise the same. Than it would seem the storekeeper would be entirely justified.

If an individual enters into a restaurant and orders he implicitly agrees to pay the bill. By installing software with a EULA you agree to the terms of the agreement. So it is obvious that there are many situations where individuals enter into implicit agreements.

If two people voluntarily enter into a dual to the death, the winner cannot be considered a murderer. If two boxers put on a show, they cannot be charged with battery. People can and do legitimately agree to having bodily harm done to them.

Considering that individuals can enter into contracts implicitly and that they can agree to having bodily harm done to them, many if not most instances of ‘maximalist’ punishment which goes beyond proportionality are justified.

[Juan]

Why are you obsessed with killing petty thieves on the spot ?

[Harry_Felker]

@Stephen Forde

must we go along with those libertarians who claim that a storekeeper has the right to kill a lad as punishment for snatching a piece of his bubble gum?

OK, this is an issue of just punishment for crime, in order to take a life, one’s life must be in jeopardy, a piece of bubble gum is not going to kill the shopkeeper, if the robber threatens the shopkeeper with a weapon, then it is apples and oranges, if the shopkeeper chases the person and he is injured in his fleeing, that is fine, if he dies while fleeing (running into traffic) still OK, but if the shopkeeper shoots him, that is just plain dumb to accept that as just response to petty theft…

The argument anti libs go with is either he shoots him or lets him steal, there are a myriad of other options out there…

[wilderness]

Forde,

That was an example of the “maximalist position”. It is not Rothbard’s as we know. So you are saying the “maximalist position” is justified? It was a question Rothbard was asking and he asked other questions too in that chapter. Rothbard is in favor of proportionality.

I am not set in stone on repercussions personally. I think the debate is still going. But in this case I’m definitely against a store owner killing a lad or adult for taking a gum ball. It would be absurd. This seems silly.

[hashem]

@Stephen Forde

Well, let’s hypothesize that the individual in question not a lad, but a fully grown adult, and the consequences of theft are clearly posted at the entrance of the store, but the scenario is otherwise the same. Than it would seem the storekeeper would be entirely justified.

The sign isn’t a proper contract, since implied consent doesn’t exist in a libertarian society, and it doesn’t transfer title anyways. Thus, the shopkeeper can’t claim extra punishment. Any extra punishment by the shopkeeper would be considered aggression and illegal. Regardless, in any scenario based on contract or not, extra punishment is always illegal aggression.

I like this topic. Much of the reason I joined these forums was to test my comprehension of Rothbard with scenarios like this. Still, that’s just my guess. Am I right?

[Charles_Anthony]

@hashem

The sign isn’t a proper contract, since implied consent doesn’t exist in a libertarian society, and it doesn’t transfer title anyways. Thus, the shopkeeper can’t claim extra punishment. Any extra punishment by the shopkeeper would be considered aggression and illegal. Regardless, in any scenario based on contract or not, extra punishment is always illegal aggression.

I think you are looking at this scenario the wrong way – you are reading too much into it.

First, the sign is a proper contract because it is posted for all to see before entering the property. Technically, we should make allowances for people who can not read but those people will learn to cope in society by asking before entering.

Second, you should not be talking about punishment. This is where you are reading too much. Rather, you should simply consider consequence. The difference is subtle but punishment implies motives of the actor – i.e., he is responding with a particular goal. Whereas consequences stipulated in such a contract are independent of motives. “If you do this, I will do that in response. Why I do that is none of your business, I do not need to justify it, if you enter my property you are explicitly consenting to my terms.” In essence, if you just look at it as consequence, you simplify the analysis as you should because you can never know the motives of an other person anyway.

[wilderness]

Charles,

Whether or not its a consequence or punishment it is still the action after the event handled by a person. I don’t see the hang-up in why one word is better than the next.

[liberticity]

Seems to me that could be a legitimate contract. I don’t think that storekeeper would get a lot of business with such policies though.

[Bostwick]

@Charles Anthony

First, the sign is a proper contract because it is posted for all to see before entering the property. Technically, we should make allowances for people who can not read but those people will learn to cope in society by asking before entering.

Nonsense.

Saying you have the right to do something and actually having the right are two different things.

Just because a person steps on a piece of property does not mean they surrender all rights to their body. A conflict of property rights has been created, but that does not mean that one right negates the other.

So your argument that a person only has as many rights as the owner of the property allows is false. A person has full ownership over their body, irrespective of location, that is proportionally reduced by committing aggression.

Rothbard’s whole point, that you clearly missed, is that you can’t do anything you want to someone just because they are on your land. Your so called contract is a merely a sign disagreeing with that simple fact.

I have to wonder, would you defend the enforcibility of a sign that read: “Anyone who walks on my lawn becomes my slave for life”? After all, it fits the template.

@Charles Anthony

“If you do this, I will do that in response. Why I do that is none of your business, I do not need to justify it, if you enter my property you are explicitly consenting to my terms.”

[Harry_Felker]

@JonBostwick

Nonsense.

Saying you have the right to do something and actually having the right are two different things.

Just because a person steps on a piece of property does not mean they surrender all rights to their body. A conflict of property rights has been created, but that does not mean that one right negates the other.

So your argument that a person only has as many rights as the owner of the property allows is false. A person has full ownership over their body, irrespective of location, that is proportionally reduced by committing aggression.

Rothbard’s whole point, that you clearly missed, is that you can’t do anything you want to someone just because they are on your land. Your so called contract is a merely a sign disagreeing with that simple fact.

I will have to agree with that, you cannot kill a person that is on your property without the threat of death first being applied (self Defense)

[Bostwick]

@Stephen Forde

If two people voluntarily enter into a dual to the death, the winner cannot be considered a murderer. If two boxers put on a show, they cannot be charged with battery. People can and do legitimately agree to having bodily harm done to them.

You’re trying to say that consenting to walking into a store or consenting to steal candy equals to consenting to being killed. There is a simple way to prove or disprove that, ask the thief if he consents to being killed.

The difference between a boxing match and your thief scenario is that the boxers actually do consent to the fight, and if they stop consenting to the fight they can quit. If a boxer contracts to fight but later wishes to withdraw, he can’t be forced to fight. A boxer does not transfer away his right to his body, a contract is not a promise. It is a specific transfer of title over property; if you fight, we will pay you. If he is already paid but refuses to fight, ownership of the money reverts to the payor.

If the thief steals candy and refuses to let the shop keeper kill him, he has violated the contract of entry and gets kicked out.

[Laughing_Man]

Continuing the Rothbard quote [something I think is necessary for this topic]:

‘I propose that this position suffers from a grotesque lack of proportion. By concentrating on the storekeeper’s right to his bubble gum, it totally ignores another highly precious property-right: every man’s—including the urchin’s—right of self-ownership. On what basis must we hold that a minuscule invasion of another’s property lays one forfeit to the total loss of one’s own? I propose another fundamental rule regarding crime: the criminal, or invader, loses his own right to the extent that he has deprived another man of his. If a man deprives another man of some of his self-ownership or its extension in physical property, to that extent does he lose his own rights.[5] From this principle immediately derives the proportionality theory of punishment-best summed up in the old adage: “let the punishment fit the crime.”[6’]

[Harry_Felker]

@Anarchist Cain

Continuing the Rothbard quote [something I think is necessary for this topic]:

Thanks Cain, [8-|], or should I say Shin?

[Laughing_Man]

Ass dance my friend…ass dance.

[hashem]

@JonBostwick

So your argument that a person only has as many rights as the owner of the property allows is false. A person has full ownership over their body, irrespective of location, that is proportionally reduced by committing aggression.

@JonBostwick

If the thief steals candy and refuses to let the shop keeper kill him, he has violated the contract of entry and gets kicked out.

JonBostwick has summed it up. Although, I have to question the validity of a sign at an entrance being considered a contract in any proper sense. A proper contract transfers title, and implied consent doesn’t exist.

[Charles_Anthony]

@wilderness

Charles,

Whether or not its a consequence or punishment it is still the action after the event handled by a person. I don’t see the hang-up in why one word is better than the next.

I point out the subtle difference in the language because there is no scientific nor objective way to distinguish an act of vengeance from an act of punishment.

Often libertarians incorporate an actor’s motives, goals or preferences as justifications for their actions. Those people are severely confused and they do a major disservice to libertarian thought because now we have to determine whether the motives, goals or preferences have been met which is impossible. You can never get into a person’s mind. For example, I may say that restitution requires a $1,000,000 dollars for driving over my seeing eye dog and we may all agree. However, in actual fact, I just want to see the perpetrator go bankrupt. You would never know the difference. The same weakness in the argument applies if we say that a punishment/consequence is acceptable if it is proportional or in self-defense.

The point being that punishment is arbitrary and subject to further dispute. Putting qualifications on the consequences does not further the libertarian discussion of meting out justice. The only thing that reduces the arbitrariness is mutual consent to the terms of justice.

@JonBostwick

Just because a person steps on a piece of property does not mean they surrender all rights to their body. A conflict of property rights has been created, but that does not mean that one right negates the other.

That is not the argument. You are having trouble recognizing consent.

My argument is that if a visitor freely steps on a piece of property AFTER reading the sign that stipulates the terms of a contract, the visitor has conceivably consented to the terms of the contract. No more and no less. The actual terms of the contract are irrelevent.

Your argument is arbitrary. Your argument suggests that the terms of the contract are null and void if they happen to include arbitrary consequences upon your body even if the two parties consent.

@JonBostwick

So your argument that a person only has as many rights as the owner of the property allows is false.

No. My argument is that the only intelligent rights that should be recognized are determined by consent and a mutual agreement. The mutual agrement is in turn identified by the visitor making the decision to proceed on the property after having read the terms of the contract.

@JonBostwick

A person has full ownership over their body, irrespective of location, that is proportionally reduced by committing aggression.

Your use of the term “proportionally” is your achilles heal.

The only concept of proportion that is worthy of libertarian discussion is when it is agreed upon by the two parties. The fact that it is proportional then becomes moot and it is simply an agreement of consequenses. You or any other third party have nothing to say about it.

@JonBostwick

Rothbard’s whole point, that you clearly missed,

I know his point. I am insisting that it is arbitrary and inconsistent with mutual consent.

@JonBostwick

I have to wonder, would you defend the enforcibility of a sign that read: “Anyone who walks on my lawn becomes my slave for life”? After all, it fits the template.

A few answers:

1. What I would personally defend is irrelevent. I am a Christian and I believe more and more in turning the other cheek. If you want to hear more about how I reconcile that with my adherence to the non-aggression principle, I would love to expand upon that in a different thread.

2. You are right. It fits the template indeed. What is wrong with it? Your only argument amounts to nothing more than “Rothbard says it is wrong. Therefore, it must be wrong.”

3. The visitor who wants to become a slave for life might defend the enforcibility of that sign and it is no business of yours to stop him – if you want to be a libertarian, that is.

I have questions for you, JonB:

Faced with the same situation, would YOU mount a resistance to anybody who mutually agrees to being a slave for life with the owner of the lawn? Would you deny anybody the right to offer themselves into slavery? How much of your money would you spend to resist? Would you risk your life to intervene as a Good Samaritan?

[hashem]

@Charles: After all that writing, your argument is still an utter failure.

1. Implied consent doesn’t exist. There is no such thing. The sign is not a binding contract.

2. Suppose for the sake of argument that the sign is a binding contract. Thus, I would sign it walking in, and would conditionally transfer title of my property. Now suppose I refused to consent to the terms of the sign. Then, if I stole the bubblegum, would I be free from all consequences?

3. What if I closed my eyes while walking into the store, and didn’t read the sign?

[Charles_Anthony]

Your questions boil down to the following: “How do you determine that consent has been made?” There is nothing unique about that problem to this scenario. All legal issues must handle it and in Libertariana, they are handled by arbitration if a peaceful solution is what you seek.

@hashem

1. Implied consent doesn’t exist. There is no such thing. The sign is not a binding contract.

I am not saying there is implied consent. I am saying there is simply consent. The distinction between implied consent and explicit consent is arbitrary and again, if a dispute arises, it should be settled by arbitration.

@hashem

2. Suppose for the sake of argument that the sign is a binding contract. Thus, I would sign it walking in, and would conditionally transfer title of my property. Now suppose I refused to consent to the terms of the sign. Then, if I stole the bubblegum, would I be free from all consequences?

If you refused to consent to the terms of the sign and yet, you still entered the property, you are simply tresspassing. If you are expecting to walk on a property and violate the terms, the property owner would be wise to distrust you. You certainly are dishonest.

@hashem

3. What if I closed my eyes while walking into the store, and didn’t read the sign?

What do you want? I can not predict the future. However, my guess would be that the property owner would ask: “Did you read the damn sign??” and ask you to leave. If you are expecting me to say: “Yes, the property owner has the right to shoot you on sight.” because it is consistent with my argument, then I will say “Yes, the property owner has the right to shoot you on sight but nobody has the magical ability to make a libertarian out of a non-libertarian. Everybody else in the community is free to retaliate if they feel they have the moral right to do so. I have no power to stop them.”

No doubt killing a person for stealing bubble gum is neurotic and extreme, in my opinion even if it was technically sanctioned by a sign. If you are looking for libertarian theory to solve this extreme dilemma, you will never find it. You will face an infinite argument where I will always be able to retort: “Yeah, but what if you DID read the sign and feign ignorance?”

However, I have faith in the market. I trust that neurotic property owners will have a hard time surviving financially and that everybody else will ostracize them. That is the most you will get from libertarian theory coupled with a bit of arbitration tossed into the mix.

[hashem]

So you basically failed hard. Good job.

There is an answer: The sign is not a binding contract, and the sign can never be a binding contract because implied consent doesn’t exist. Clearly then, if consent does indeed exist, then so also the right NOT to consent. So what if i refuse to consent to the sign, and I still enter property? Then you can’t hold me to the terms of the sign, because it wasn’t binding. The worst that can happen is I will be trespassing, and you may get compensated accordingly. You have no right to my person for trespassing. Case closed.

Suppose I tresspassed AND stole gum, all without consenting to your little sign. Then still, all you have against me is trespassing and stealing, and you can only justly punish me accordingly. There is a libertarian natural law answer to everything. Just because you can’t figure it out doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. In fact, it’s taken multiple geniuses several centuries to figure as much as we have so far. I wouldn’t expect you to know everything.

[wilderness]

@Charles Anthony

@wilderness

Charles,

Whether or not its a consequence or punishment it is still the action after the event handled by a person. I don’t see the hang-up in why one word is better than the next.

I point out the subtle difference in the language because there is no scientific nor objective way to distinguish an act of vengeance from an act of punishment.

Just so you know, I’m not arguing against using the concept “consequence”. It’s valid. But to hinge a concept on scientific objectivity isn’t necessary especially when I can label an event “just punishment”. I have no quarrel either way. They both have been used and seem to be valid.

@Charles Anthony

Often libertarians incorporate an actor’s motives, goals or preferences as justifications for their actions. Those people are severely confused and they do a major disservice to libertarian thought because now we have to determine whether the motives, goals or preferences have been met which is impossible. You can never get into a person’s mind. For example, I may say that restitution requires a $1,000,000 dollars for driving over my seeing eye dog and we may all agree. However, in actual fact, I just want to see the perpetrator go bankrupt. You would never know the difference. The same weakness in the argument applies if we say that a punishment/consequence is acceptable if it is proportional or in self-defense.

I agree totally here, which is an explanation of what just (justice) repercussions, punishments, and consequences, etc… They can be whimsical and I know of no universal standards. Not in the concepts, but in the event the concept is defining. Somebody could ask for a million and the victim could be seeking more in terms of vengeance than justice and by doing so there could be more damage than help in what may develop.

@Charles Anthony

The point being that punishment is arbitrary and subject to further dispute. Putting qualifications on the consequences does not further the libertarian discussion of meting out justice. The only thing that reduces the arbitrariness is mutual consent to the terms of justice.

I incline to agree, but of course deciding who is to play a part in the “mutual” aspect of the mutual consent is personally up for grabs, meaning, I can’t say I have the firm knowledge that would convince me who the “mutual” party is.[:)]