Because that would be mass extortion. Or do you think committing mass extortion and punishing a known murderer are the same thing?
He was appraising Rothbard as a philosopher, and had a negative opinion of him; if you consider that attacking Rothbard, so be it, but all philosophers must be appraised as a whole.
Because he has done that on multiple occasions.
No it is not, for instance: Feser showed that Rothbard did no follow through with all possibilities with respect to ownership, and therefore showed Rothbard had a sloppy approach - there’s no room for a subjective opinion there, you may still believe a sloppy philosopher, but that does not change the fact that they are a sloppy philosopher.
Feser did no such thing, since Rothbard covered everything.
And Feser didn’t follow through with all the possibilities with respect to Rothbard’s sloppiness, so Feser is sloppy too.
By what authority, if not the mob, would you punish a “murderer” then?
By what authority did you shoot the thief?
Aggression against my property.
Now I will ask you again. What authority will you use to “punish” a “murderer”?
A ‘philosopher’ hehehe…
So you think any crime gives the authority to the victim to kill the criminal?
Justice? I am confused by your question. Do you think anyone owns anyone else? If not, then by what authority does anyone have to seek justice for murder? I can’t claim you killed my property if you killed another human being (in reference to adults).
Could be worse; it could be a narcissistic youtube channel.
Even if one disagrees with him, at least your reading words & increasing your literacy 
lol, internets.
No intentions of ad-hom, however; just innocent “lols”
Did I write that?
It’s a simple question. For the 3rd time, answer it.
LS, maybe you should stop acting as if you had the upper hand in this argument cause you don’t.
Who is acting?
You are acting - meaning both that you are arguing (which is an action) AND conducting yourself as if you were right - which you are not.
Oh you mean like Human Action. Yeah, I am human, acting. [:)]
Speaking of acting, your indignation should be directed at the populist who rejects private defense. What sort of Molinari fan lets that stuff slide?
I did not reject private defense. Shooting someone for stealing some food is homicide, not defense.
…
…
You don’t know that. What if it is the last of my food? Am I not allowed to fight to the death for it?
If he can steal my food, can he steal my house? At what point, am I allowed to use lethal force under your justice system? How, during the crime, am I supposed to determine proportionality? It’s not possible. What is clear, is that one party has maliciously attempted to violate the property (and by extension, life) of another.
You still haven’t answered my question about how you will find the moral authority to judge another man clearly defending his property from an aggressor as “too much defense”.
You haven’t answered, because you cannot. What you and the neighbors think, is just democracy. It has no bearing on a conception of property rights, or natural rights.
So before you shake your finger at me, Mr. Baby Rape is OK, and Mr. Stealing is OK in Small Amounts, check yourself.
It is the obvious conclusion. You said it would be justifiable to kill a petty thief.
Again, for clarification, do you think there is ever any valid authority to punish a murderer? If so, what is it? I am trying to understand your question better.