Do you seriously believe that we are going to get everyone in the world to agree on what is proportional?
Please describe the circumstances, if any, where people are allowed to use force to defend their property.
Why is ‘restitution’ of property subjective whereas, I imagine, property itself is objective ? Restitution is tightly bound to property - restitution can’t be a subjective concept which derives from an objective one.
It seems to me that one either wholly embraces moral nihilism/subjectivism, or tries to find a consistent and objective moral system.
Not sure what you mean. Not murdering a petty thief is a ‘convention’ ?
I think I’ve done two things. One, made a good deal of rational points. Two, treated people - who I think are arguing for outright murder - in a less-than-polite way. I don’t think that my manners invalidate my arguments. IOW there were no ad-homs, but scorn.
As to fallacies, here’s one, chemically pure.
What I’m arguing is that defense must be proportional. What Max is doing is setting up a straw man…
Please describe the circumstances in general and tell us what is proportional in the bubble gum case.
Also, please tell us how every person will know what is proportional in every case.
Max, I think I already made clear why I’m not taking you seriously ?
Because value is subjective. We can agree something is property, but not necessarily agree on its value.
I agree, this is tricky stuff.
As a social convention, murder for petty theft could be an unacceptable punishment.
Except the flame baiting (ex. sonny) I would agree.
I think what’s happened is what happens in many online debates. Both side move further apart as the debate continues, rather than closer together on understanding. This doesn’t always happen in debates, and I would love to be able to pin down why it happens. Anyway, I don’t think Max, who is pro-life, is arguing for outright murder.
Pablo on the other hand, I don’t know him so well… [;)]
I can dig that. Maybe you just need a hug. These arguments can be very frustrating.
Maxliberty, this is called “moving the goalposts” and exaggerating. The example is a bubblegum thief, not a guy taking a sledge hammer to your house. You can’t match the intellectual argument with reason so you pull out fantasy’s that never were brought up in the discussion. Stay focused.[:)]
Perhaps you would like to explain then the circumstances, if any , where violence is permissable in the defense of property. The point is simple, nobody can figure out what is going to be proportional. You might think shooting the guy destroying the house is acceptable and others won’t. How can we arrive at an objective definition of proportionality in every case?
Yes, but at least for things sold in the market there is a more or less objective value. If you on purpose, or by accident, break stuff which can be replaced for, say, $100, then you’re liable for $100 in damages. Make it $200.
What’s the other option ? That you can be enslaved to the victim for life because the victim claims that his second-hand skateboard is invaluable to him ?
Also, there are situations which don’t necessarily involve subjective economic value. Say Smith throws the contents of a glass of beer at Jones. Can Jones kill Smith in retribution ?
Never said we could in all cases. But it’s obvious to me shooting a bubblegum lad that stole is murder. A guy with an itchy trigger finger that can’t handle a lad that stole a piece of bubblegum is more the problem.
Hmm, bubblegum gone
or shooting a lad.
If you can’t figure that out, then I think your “subjective” mind lost it’s practical wisdom, but that’s just me, of course.
I agree, it is problematic. Which means we might have to rely on a 3rd party to arbitrate compensation. And it might not be objective or please everyone’s subjectivity.
This is my point. There is no objective answer. We might have to rely on convention, precedent etc. See, I believe we can’t judge intent as clearly as we can judge action. So if someone initiates violence with me, I only know that he has initiated violence, not when or why he will stop. Without needlessly risking myself, I will initiate self-defense that may not be proportional to the violence used against me thus far, but in what I consider to be a sufficient quantity to end the aggression.
I’m just saying, these guys are arguing an extreme, and you are arguing another extreme, and there is probably a lot of reasonable, common ground between both sides, which is where the bulk of these discussions have value, as it will be very rare that someone decides to kill a shoplifter, even if they are protected under law to do so.
Well, if two parties voluntarily agree to whatever a 3rd party decides, I’ve no objection. But the idea that somebody who caused a small damage is going to agree to be enslaved or to pay non-proportional damages is not…a realistic idea IMO.
Well, my question was more of a rhetorical question. I think the answer is plain.
Assuming you are not a moral nihilist and so regard life as valuable, and consider life as the starting point for any other value (since the dead don’t value, as far as we know), it then follows that the destruction of life is not something you want to support.
Smith caused a small damage to Jones. That’s something I imagine you frown upon. Now, the solution is for Jones to cause total damage to Smith ? On what grounds ?
What about you as a 3rd party who supposedly values life - why would you support the destruction of Smith’s life ?
Indeed.
I don’t think so. I’m arguing a more rational position that is being disregarded as ‘subjectivist’ when in reality it’s more objective and grounded in reality than the trigger-happy solution.
I don’t think so. These people support a unilaterally decided death penalty for petty crime. Lots of problems in that which were not addressed.
Sounds like a good recipe for abuse, not to mention an attempt, as I said before, at overriding natural law with arbitrary legislation.
No one said otherwise. What was said was that anything more than a proportional response will be made to answer for it.
But then–you’re the only one who ever does anything for liberty, right Max?
I’m not sure I understood this.
The arguments against liberty are that without laws, people may do bad things. We know however that people will do bad things regardless of laws. Laws only punish or regulate the innocent.
If we really believe that shopkeepers will resort to killing bubble gum thieves as a first, second or third option, then there is nothing we can do to stop it. A libertarian society is not possible if that is the natural inclination (and thus convention) in a free society.
As time has gone on, I agree with your on a lot of things Juan, but I think you are still insisting on utopianism. We’re going to have shop keepers shoot bubble gum thieves. The question is, will it be right? And that will be the test of our libertarian society. What sort of conventions we adopt to work around our conflicts. The voluntary stuff should come real easy.
We have to start from some basic starting point. I start based on property rights can be defended with force. Your position is that the property owner is defenseless to protect his property because violence is by default not proportional.
As far as doing things for liberty…try baby steps…move out of your parents basement first.
If you can’t use violence to protect your property how do you keep people from stealing it?
Strawman and non sequitur.
You were saying something about baby steps? Maybe you should take your own advice and not commit basic fallacies, Maxine.
A libertarian framework tells you who the innocents are. The kind of laws that punish innocent people are state laws. On the other hand, if we define law as protection of life, liberty and property then the law can’t, by definition, punish innocents.
The whole discussion of course hinges on whether proportionality is part of the libertarian framework or not.
Agreed. Still, it’s something I won’t see as morally justifiable.
Well, agreed as well. If the majority of people are going to shoot each other given a minimum amount of provocation then we won’t have a civilized industrial society, but a caricature of the far-west.
I’m not sure what part of my position (or the whole ?) is utopian. The idea of a roughly uniform and voluntary legal system which protects the individual is what libertarianism is all about in my opinion.
Of course, it seems that a fair amount of people in this site advocate different things including theocracy AND amoralism at the same time…
Well, my answer is that it’s wrong and I don’t see why petty-thief-shooting should be sanctioned by law. Am I being utopian ?