I’m not sure I follow. The objections to police using supraportional force are valid today, but in a free society there wouldn’t be that sort of police. I don’t think there’s a workaround for the dilemma today, and the dilemma wouldn’t exist in a free society.
You mean do that in the current statist system ? How ?
As to finding a way to justify non-proportional force in a free society, you’ve summarized two big objections - it’d seem we’re mostly on the same page…
Well, the libertarian legal framework applies right now, even though it is not generally enforced. We still have an obligation to live by it.
Let me make give another scenario I thought of.
Let’s suppose that a libertarian revolution occurs two years from now, and libertarian laws are enforced. Today, a drug dealer is selling drugs in an apartment lobby. The owner asks him to leave. The dealer refuses. The owner calls the police. The police arrest him and he gets sent to jail for 2 years. Obviously this is not a proportionate punishment for trespassing. Now, the owner is just as guilty of the use of disproportionate force as the police are because he used the police as the means to an end and was completely aware of the consequences.
Now, should the dealer be allowed to take the owner to court for this (or the police for that matter)? I think a case can reasonably be made that he implicitly agreed to the punishment. But if we accept your framework, the owner should get something like 2 years minus 1 or 2 days in jail for excessive force. After all, a person is a criminal to the extent that they go beyond proportionality, right?
Except, I don’t agree with the objections whereas most people on this forum agree with Rothbard, that the human body is inalienable property and probably haven’t thought at all about what form an agreement must take to be binding.
In addition, you seem a little too ‘sane’ for us to be on the same page.
I would like to jump in here…
But why should the drug dealer be actually charged with drug dealing ? Assuming that’s what happened ? I mean, the owner can call the police and tell them that there’s a trespasser - so the drug dealer is just kicked out, not jailed because of the non-crime of ‘drug dealing’. Or is the owner purposely trying to get the drug dealer charged with drug dealing ?
The police should be sued into oblivion, no doubt about that. As to the owner, if he got the drug dealer convicted on purpose, he’s also responsible.
Who did ? The owner ? And agreed to what kind of punishment ?
Well, if the drug dealer was jailed for two years because of the owner’s actions, the owner couldn’t complain if he got the same treatment.
Yes.
Well, you said that the premises were “controversial” - I thought you meant they were not true. But you think they are true. I misread you - my bad.
No, we are not in the same page…
Murder is great fun. I mean, you can’t hate on it until you’ve tried it, right? [*-)]
All joking aside.. I have already stated clearly that I would not kill the bubble gum thief, but I support the shopkeepers decision to do so. I, for one, would feel like shit for killing someone for something that I see as so unreasonable.
Wow.
But the whole point is that the dead party never agreed to be killed…
Regardless of what you would do, your support for the shopkeeper relies on flawed reasoning.
I am curious how we go about making laws which are voluntary to all, yet enforces certain beliefs regardless if you agree to them? Sounds like what the intended purpose of the constitution was. We all know how well that turned out. How would the holding the next social contract over personal property law be any better?
The theif does not voluntarily agree to property rights, does that make them not exist?
You can believe what you want. If you believe that you can violate individual rights, you’ll find yourself having to pay for it. I added the word ‘voluntary’ to the sentence you quoted to indicate that I wasn’t talking about a monopolistic minimal government.
Well, libertarianism, as I think I said, is about protecting life liberty and property. The problem with miniarchism and the American constitution is not the end, is the means. (assuming the constitution is fully libertarian - which it is not)
You see a social contract where there is none.
I have given you my reasoning. The fact that you have not defined who or what will decide what is proportional is where your argument fails. I am stating that the only person who can claim what is proportional, is each person. You still believe in the czar.
Great. Though adding the word doesn’t change the fact that you still are. Its like when politicians throw around the word freedom right behind government. All you are succeeding in doing is making me cringe.
You are forcing others to obey a contract which they have not signed. That is a social contract. That is what you are advocating.
And hashem and I showed the problems with your reasoning but you either don’t understand the objections, or pretend you don’t.
I advocate competing PDAs operating on the basis of individual rights. Too bad if the concept is too difficult for you to grasp.
Yeah, the ‘contract’ that bans aggression. You on the other hand think that murder is something to be supported.
I’m still very new to all this so don’t go labeling me as an arbitrary failure here…
When you make a contract that violates the rights of any party that enters into the contract the contract is nullified. If a landlord put a clause in his lease that states I am not allowed to own libertarian literature and I bring libertarian literature into my rental space he cannot evict on those grounds as they impinge upon the rights of the distributors and creators of those works as well as my right to own and read whatever I damn well please.
Therefore, I would have to say that if anyone stole bubble gum from me the most I could do would be attempt to recoup the value of said bubble gum from the theif. To seek compensation above and beyond the value of the bubble gum and the resources I must spend to retrieve said compenstation is in itself theft.
Not if you sign the contract, I would sign no such contract…
You have the individual right ot smoke cigarettes, yet it is not a rights violation for the leasor to not rent to a smoker or if he does to require in the lease contract that there is no smoking in the apartment…
This does not involve a contract, a contract is completed upon gaining the reciept for the exchange of money for gum, the rights of the shopkeep are violated (property is stolen) with no contract present, the theif then nullified his own right to equal amount of property, plus damages, when he steals said gum, thus restitution is set by proportionality.
Welcome to the forums Jed [D]
Correct.
But, you see, when someone uses a means to and end, they are responsible for all the outcomes they know will occur as a result for choosing that means, not just the outcomes they desire. In this case the owner is responsible for both the removal of the dealer from his property and the arrest and the full term of the imprisonment.
Correct.
Juan hasn’t laid out much of a framework. He has spent most of the discussion making ad-homs. I assume that he is a strict The Ethics of Liberty-style Rothbardian, in which case there are a few points of disagreement. Of course, I can’t really be sure.
Let’s say concurrent.
Natural law is timeless. It always applies, whether it is enforced or not. What legislators think is law is irrelevant to what law actually is. So enforcement of Natural law is not and can never be retroactive. Natural law applies now just as much as it would in a free society, the state notwithstanding.
We agree then that violence can be used to defend property. Please explain why deadly force is not possible in this case then and also please provide us with what level of violence is acceptable in this case. Also, if you would be so kind to tell us in what instances of defending property deadly force can be used. See we are making progress.
Property is an extension of the person. We derive our right to property by mixing our labor with materials to create something that didn’t exist before. The person or persons who mix their labor with materials become the owners of the property. The theft or destuction of property is no different than an assault on the property owner himself.
Here is a big problem with this arguement that you Juan and Baawa are presenting. You are always assuming the thief will be caught and can be made to pay restitution. The shopkeeper has no idea if that will be the case. The shopkeeper has the choice of be robbed or use violence to stop the robber.
If we want to discuss what happens after the robber is caught five days later I think your arguement for porportionality can now come into play. In the heat of the crime the shopkeeper has to have the right to protect his property.
Is that how police operate in your country? Because that’s certainly not their MO in mine. Once they get involved, they decide whether or not they have ‘probable cause’ for a search and what charges will be laid.
Well, it’s clearly foreseeable from the perspective of the owner, so it is done on purpose, even if it is not the desired outcome. As for the police, if the owner is extracated from responsibility, so are the police.
The dealer. Obviously.
Exactly! Unless it was in the offing as far as all parties were concerned and can be considered implicitly agreed upon within a contractual framework.
No, for that to happen, we’ld have to have a civilized discussion. Instead, I’ve explained my position and you’ve heaped abuse on me.