If it’s not that bad why are people stealing?
You tell me. What’s your point? If you are trying to be deconstructive and NOT constructive or maybe your trying to globblie-go. I don’t know. You tell me.
If I were starving, hell ya.
I would say it does. Or do you not think there is no difference between stealing one sandwich as opposed to ten? I would assume you understand reality, in that it takes more time and resources to produce ten sandwiches as opposed to one and that it is therefore a greater crime to steal ten sandwiches as opposed to one.
And you know that each crime is unique. That is why we humans would use arbitrators in a free society, to help determine the severity of the crime and the punishment that would be just. In other words, to resolve the dispute.
And so the games begin…
There is a difference of scale, but not of guilt.
No, I would just poison my food or shoot the thief. I don’t need an arbiter. The exercise of my property rights in defense is judge, jury and executioner.
You’re into playing semantic games now, as you always do when you’re cornered for saying something half-baked and foolish. I’m done. You can have the last word.
I am saying that stealing is wrong. However, I am also saying that there are different levels of “wrong”. Or do you think all coercion deserves a death penalty? Do you not recognize that the punishment for a crime is dependent on the crime?
Sorry, I forgot. I fixed my response. Anyways, to repeat, hell ya, if I was starving and that was my only real option.
We seem to be in agreement. And given the difference in scale, would you not agree that the punishment should depend on that scale?
Would you then bury me, and not tell anyone about it, or would you let your neighbors know what happened? If you would let your neighbors know what happened, then I think it is safe to assume that my family would find out. At that point, it would be up to them to decide what action they want to take against you.
It would also be up to your neighbors if they want to take some kind of action against you.
No, I am not playing any semantic games. But if you just want to make accusations, and run away, fine. I really do not think we have any real disagreement, but you sure seem to want to paint me as some bad guy, for no apparent reason.
In this post alone, no matter what else you had said in this thread, I am responding to this post only.
I agree, except I wouldn’t say different levels of wrong. I would say different levels of repercussions. How I would state it seems to imply what you are saying, but I’m not completely sure if I want to put it that way. I don’t know if would conceptualize accurately in the long run. I don’t know. I would have to think about it.
Do you really plan to, if a person attempts to steal your sandwich and you recognize that, shoot and kill them?
Not if they attempt. If they steal, so I have absolute moral surety, I will shoot them in the back. Then I will tell my neighbors, who will tell that person’s family, and when they come to discuss it with me, I will explain that I was defending my property, they owe me for the bullet, and they can’t have the body back because I “homesteaded it”.
Because the risk of stealing is less than defying the state, maybe?
I really do not want to argue much about this because (a) I do not know whether you are serious about that and (b) I do not think that if you are serious, I could change your outlook. Nevertheless, I merely want to say that such an outlook is extreme and merely functions to reinforce the stereotype that anarchists and anti-statists are merely a collection of uncompassionate, militant, dogmatic, vigilantistic savages.
I think he’s probably being hyperbolic, and the point is well-taken. Most anarchists are intellectual dilettantes who spend hours arguing over rights, procedures, etc., without any regard to the issue of who is going to pay for all that crap. Does anybody seriously believe that a free market would fund lawyers, trials, holding cells, etc., for all the depraved thugs and lunatics who currently victimize people?
Arbitrations, insurance subrogation, etc., will be reserved for businesses and individuals with property and contract disputes. Criminals won’t be able to afford the premiums necessary to fund civilized methods of dispute resolution. In most instances, they’ll be driven into exile or killed in the act.
As to the situation under debate, a million years of evolution have told your basal brain what signals to fire in the event of starvation: your cerebrum will shut down and you’ll grab that ear of corn or freshly slaughtered hen without a second thought.
Social mores, e.g., hospitality among Bedouins, alms giving, etc., have likewise evolved to ameliorate the human condition in a world of scarcity. This is another area anarchists like to pretend does not exist.
In any libertarian society you would be tried for murder.
You obviously have not adequately read Feser; rather, he is refuting that self-ownership is a sound axiom. Here is yet another blogpost on the subject.
I don’t waste much time on Feser’s and Marx’s. Please tell me what is the sound axioms. As I see this, it is a bunch of religious bullshit. If I have to, I could dig out the funny Feser-Rothbard critique where Feser says that nobody can own themselves. I guess you are denying this now. I assume too that you don’t actually believe what you say because there is no thought to it.
By who? By the trespasser’s family? If they had those resources, they would have fed him before he stole from me.
You and I differ on this. I come down on the side of peace and compassion, but economically, the threat of lethal force is a big advantage in deterring CRIME and VIOLENCE. There is no point in owning a gun if you are not a credible threat to shoot.
And no, I am not going to debate it with you. We know where the other guy stands.
Feel free to ignore Feser, and to draw false conclusions from his argument as much as you want, it is only a loss for your intellect.
Your neighbors could bring suit against you.
And if you have a gun, you better have a good reason to shoot it. Someone stealing some food from you is usually not going to be a good enough reason.
Claiming what loss?
Why not? Who defines what I can do with my property, on my property?
This.
Yes, but you’ll never get anyone to explain it. It’s like trying to get a thick libertarian to explain why society should be multi-cultural.
Indeed.