I think Feser would be deserving of respect if he didn’t attack Rothbard. Why attack Rothbard himself when he can attack Rothbard’s argument? Also, Rothbard’s sloppiness it subjective. Feser think Rothbard is sloppy, while I don’t. But Feser is trying to prove why Rothbard is universally sloppy, instead saying why Rothbard is sloppy to Feser.
It is not about claiming a loss. It is about having a neighbor that is out of control and scary. I would not be OK with my neighbor killing someone for stealing some food. If my other neighbors felt the same way, we would probably want to take some kind of action to rid ourselves of the problem.
People. As I have stated in previous threads, just because it is legal to perform abortions, does not make it safe to perform abortions.
In a free society, you are free to setup loudspeakers on your property and blast out rap music all hours of the day. And someone else, being that he or she is an acting human being, can figure out how to blow up your house and then blow it up. Was it “right” for the other person to blow up your house? Well, that is why we need courts. Because otherwise, you might go blow up his or her house, and so on, and so forth. Disputes need to be resolved.
Regardless, again, I think this is a pretty ridiculous scenario. In a free society, I see no reason why anyone would be starving so much that he or she would need to steal food to eat. Maybe it is just better to not talk about it, since it is so ridiculous. I guess I will leave it at this.
Then there is no problem.
Yeah, mob rule. Maybe you can get rid of the black neighbors, the neighbors with the messy yard, etc. I mean as long as you don’t recognize my property or my right to defend it, go nuts. Burn my house down, drive my wife and kids into the street. Anything to make you feel less scared and more in control right?
Then that’s not a libertarian society.
Oh sure, they could, but they would get shot and killed. No one would insure them, and they would not have the force to defend themselves for taking such an action. No one is going to insure someone against conflict, when that person forces conflict.
Freedom might not be what you are looking for after all. Maybe you just want more power.
A libertarian society is one where we take responsibility for our own actions. If you’re not ready to be responsible, and to carry your own water, then keep paying taxes, and let the government handle dispute resolution for you. You can offload the cost of being a busy body, a know it all, and an instigator onto everyone else. The state is good for that.
If property owners have the right to deny other people access on their property, what if somebody buy everything around my house? I will starve to death!
Order food online and have it delivered by air.
easements
By anybody with an interest in justice. Also, no PDA would want a murderer as customer.
That’s not the point. The point is that killing petty thieves is murder, and the situation you described - shooting somebody in the back - is despicable murder.
I don’t care if you claim to be on the side of ‘peace’ and ‘compassion’ - your declaration is wholly irrelevant. The point is that the action you described IS murder.
There’s not much to debate. You are totally wrong. I hope that no reasonable person confuse your position with libertarianism.
Ah no, you can’t have it both ways. You either stand by what you said or not. You do support murder in cold blood - it’s not ‘hyperbole’.
And if he buys the ground above my house?
He would have to homestead the air above your house. I don’t think anyone has figured out how to homestead air yet. Good research project for you.
No, they would however lower premiums for clients who participate in the defense of their own property.
Is it ok if I shoot them in the front? How do you feel about my poison on the food idea?
No, it is self-defense.
Nope. Murderers won’t be ‘good’ customers and they may end up as outlaws - or lynched.
I think you are sick.
I am, because I know how to get a rise out of you, and can pull it off perfectly, on demand.
Lynching is murder.
Truly, where do you get this right-wing-nut nonsense from ?
And out of curiosity, what do you think about rothbard, and any other sensible, non-murderous people, who point out that legitimate self-defense is bounded by proportionality ?
Do you think rothbard was a commie who opposed private property ? Or maybe was too stupid to realize that a ‘consistent’(sarcasm) theory of property rights actually enables murder so he ‘betrayed’(sarcasm) libertarianism by taking into account ‘socialistic’ proportionality ?
Oh, how funny.
Why do you call everything you don’t agree with, “right wing”?
I think it is practically unworkable.
What do they say over on the FLL?
Truly, where do you get this right left-wing-nut nonsense from ?
I wouldn’t do it if I didn’t love you. [U]
No, but I call typical right-wing stuff, “right wing”.
Out of curiosity, again, what world do you live in ? Even in the statist world I live in there’s a minimum of justice, and petty thieves are not murderer for their petty crimes. I don’t see what’s ‘unworkable’ about justice.
I don’t know - ask them.
I really don’t see people being afraid of blacks or people with messy yards. For some reason, you seem to have no sense of reality it appears. Killing another human is not the same as having a different skin color.
Conjecture.
Conjecture
Conjecture
I don’t buy into the whole idea of PDAs
Not really. I could care less to control peaceful people. Sicko murderers, though, yes.
What is your problem?
This
Why not just establish a democracy, and you and your neighbors could determine the laws and rules by popular vote?