So what makes case 1 an apple where supraproportional force is not allowed and case 2 an orange where supraproportional force is allowed?
Commitment of the force is by the shopkeeper directly
It is not, it is just not the owners responsibility, it is the states…
If the thief was shot by a cop, the same would apply to the shopkeeper if yelled “stop thief!!!” in a statist world…
If the DROs/individual agree on what is proportional, they should be held accountable. I think this can be true from the get go, or five days later.
Claiming something is a mockery of justice, implies you know what justice is. What is it? I don’t want to hear your personal viewpoint on it. I want an objective viewpoint which is applicable to all persons at all times. Simple enough. I look forward to hearing your response.
I’ve been gone for a few days, read over the posts, and to my disappointment, you still have failed to answer what (in an objective sense) is a proportional reaction the shopkeeper could take.
Thanks.
It’s funny how on one hand there’s no such thing as proportionality (the confused amoralists claim), because, alllegedly nobody can ever agree on what proportionality means.
On the other hand, proportionality is going to actually be determined by agreement. But the people who are going to contractually agree (via PDAs) don’t know what proportionality is. It’s like blindmen agreeing on what is a color, and what the difference between red and green is.
A ridiculous contradiction.
But oh well. Never let logic get in the way of a nice floating abstraction such as “EVERYTHING IS CONTRACTS”
Pablo, as hashem pointed out, you need to realize that you barely know what you’re talking about.
My pleasure.
I do.
Giving that which is deserved, essentially.
Now then, moral and epistemic nihilist–what do you have?
Seconded. How can one have a theory of contractual enforcement without having a theory of property rights enforcement in the first place. It begs the question.
Grabbing the theif by the wrist, twisting him down to the ground and taking the bubblegum from his possession if he’s still in the process of stealing it.
Later on, if the theif has successfully stolen it and is later caught punishment should be equivilent to the piece of gum plus the piece of gum times the inverse of the likelihood he would’ve gotten caught plus the cost of capture plus interest, imo.
This is a strawman. I never stated this and do not agree with it.
Subjectively- I know what is proportional. My proportionality is not necessarily the same as someone else’s is. The only way to arrive at an objectively true statement is for me to say, “For me, proportionality is X” . This is indisputable. Furthermore, if Bill were to say, “For me, proportionality is X”, and we were both to agree that eithers is a fair assessment, we could arrive at an objective truth. “For myself and Bill, proportionality is X”. If John were to disagree with what is proportional, is he ‘wrong’? If he is responsible for his life, and his property, how can you place your proportionality onto him against his will? For this reason, it is incredibly dangerous to apply your viewpoint of proportionality to anothers without their agreement. The only way you can do this, is by using coercion.
It is nothing like that. It is like two able and willing persons agreeing on what is proportional. Why must you attempt to distort it with a poor analogy?
You have a lot to learn. Stop pretending like you understand everything. Perhaps then you will realize that you can not be the czar of the world.
I am not a nihilist. I believe rights are created by contracts. I believe morals are subjective. They are based on each individuals nature and nurture. I believe there is truth, but it is not found by claiming that something is true, when clearly it is false. (ie, claiming there is an objective proportionality)
You are passing the definition. What is ‘that which is deserved’? Who is to decide ‘that which is deserved’?
There will never be one definition which can encompass everyones subjective viewpoint of what is just. The only way to achieve this, is by allowing each individual the ability to agree with what they see as just.
Mmmmhmm
Yet it is not clearly false.
Nope.
If you kill someone for stealing a pack of gum, you have destroyed justice. You have substituted might makes right for justice. THAT is what you propose.
All right. I lumped you with other people who stated that in this thread. Nevertheless, your position does imply that proportionality is not objective. But it seems you don’t understand your own position.
Are you saying that you learn what things objectively are by means of agreement ?
Why ? Just because we ‘agree’ ? Well, we could agree that the earth is flat too…
Anyway, you’re attempting to define the problem out of existence. Here : the problem is : How do people who have not signed a contract ‘defining’ what proportionality is, deal with problems involving proportionality. Do you understand what the problem is ?
As I said, contracts presuppose rights. Stop pretending you know what you’re talking about - also realize that knowing more than you do, doesn’t mean I’m an omniscient czar or anything of the sort. You make it sound as if nobody can be better informed than you…
Yes, that’s one of the problems. And the theory of enforcement of contracts must be consistent with a prior theory explaining why we have rights at all.
If you can not even begin to tell me an objective definition for a proportional action, then it is clearly false.
You have yet to show that upholding an individuals rights to DEFEND his property in any way he sees fit is might makes right. That is clearly not what I am proposing. What you truly are proposing is that a third party should arbitrate over anothers life and property. This is unlibertarian and based on falacious logic. You can not propose he both has the right to defend his property, whilst proposing he must use a third parties proportionality to defend it. Where does the third party derive the right to coercion?
That is clearly what you are doing. There is no question about it. You have been called out. If you deny this, then you are lying. Until you can tell me an objective, universally applicable definition for ‘justice’, or ‘proportionality’, or any other clearly subjective value, your arguement will continue to fail. The only way to achieve said definition is through agreement between individuals.
Non sequitur.
You have yet to show that killing for a pack of gum is proportional.
Whenever you get tired of trying to shift the burden of proof, let me know.
I have answered your question multiple times already. If you have not the ability to comprehend what I am saying, perhaps you should try and ask a question without the snobby, all-knowing attitude. The party who is initiating violence opens themselves to an ‘open contract’ with the victim. Depending on the laws of the property in which the crime has taken place, the criminal may or may not be granted any rights at all (more likely than not, the laws will mimic de facto laws of the society, but they are not required to). If none are granted, the criminal will be at the mercy of the victim to determine what is proportional.
You need to realize that you are refering to two different ideas. The ‘right’ of which you speak is inherent in any acting organism. It need not be granted or even noted. It is an inalienable aspect of all action. You could clarify what you mean by using the word ‘self-sovereign’.
Let me try and simplify this for you:
The statement, “Chocolate ice cream is the best thing in the world”, is incorrect, as it is proposing that the subjective value of best is an objective truth. However, the statement, “In my opinion, chocolate ice cream is the best thing in the world”, is undeniable and objectively true.
If I took three people, one which thinks vanilla is the best thing in the world, and two which think chocolate is the best thing in the world, I can not logically say “Chocolate is the best in the world”. The same is true if 6,000,000,000 agree to chocolate being the best, and 1 thinks vanilla is the best. It is still a falacious statement. I could however say, “According to these 6,000,000,000 people, chocolate is the best thing in the world”, and be correct. The same thing occurs if you are attempting to find an objective definition for the subjective value of ‘proportional’.
My argument is simple: if you have agreed to what is ‘proportional’, or ‘just’, then you can be held to that definition. Anything else will require coercion.
I hope you can see the dangers of your falacious argument.
The earth being flat is not a subjective value.
You are claiming there is an objective definition to a proportional action. Since you can provide no proof for your radical claim, you are false. It is not a non-sequitor.
I am growing bored of this. I am not claiming that it need be proportional. You are. Stop setting up strawmen. If this is how you debate, then I will refuse to debate with you.
The burden of proof is still on you. You still have yet to show an objective definition for proportionality. I do not care what you believe is proportional. You have no authority over anothers life or property. You are claiming that authority by use of coercion. This is the reason I am calling you a czar. If you can not realize that, perhaps you should read my posts in the entirety before clicking reply.