Shooting a girl on your property

[NHArticleTen]

and I don't care if you're little red riding hood dressed as a wolf...or a wolf dressed as little red riding hood...

perhaps you've forgotten those little vietnamese kids throwing grenades into the medivac choppers?


I haven't...

[Ecolitan]

You are at max allowed to respond to the aggression with the SAME AMOUNT OR LESS aggression as it was done against you.

Bullshit.  If someone is trying to physically harm me I can do whatever I have to to make him stop.  If a 300lb man is throwing punches at me I'm not going to try to punch him back, that would be worthless, I'm going to try to make him incapable of throwing more punches as quickly and efficiently as possible.

Doing equal damage as has been done to you is vengeance and biblical eye for an eye bullshit.  Rendering them incapable of doing more damage is defense.

[Richard Garner]

You are at max allowed to respond to the aggression with the SAME AMOUNT OR LESS aggression as it was done against you.

Bullshit.  If someone is trying to physically harm me I can do whatever I have to to make him stop.  If a 300lb man is throwing punches at me I'm not going to try to punch him back, that would be worthless, I'm going to try to make him incapable of throwing more punches as quickly and efficiently as possible.

Doing equal damage as has been done to you is vengeance and biblical eye for an eye bullshit.  Rendering them incapable of doing more damage is defense.

Yes, that is about doing what is necessary to stop the attack. You use the minimum necessary, which may actually be more than the damage that would have been done to you.

[prashantpawar]

You are at max allowed to respond to the aggression with the SAME AMOUNT OR LESS aggression as it was done against you.

Bullshit.  If someone is trying to physically harm me I can do whatever I have to to make him stop.  If a 300lb man is throwing punches at me I'm not going to try to punch him back, that would be worthless, I'm going to try to make him incapable of throwing more punches as quickly and efficiently as possible.

Doing equal damage as has been done to you is vengeance and biblical eye for an eye bullshit.  Rendering them incapable of doing more damage is defense.

I don't give a damn to bible(just to let you know), its a matter of Libertarian philosophy.

Secondly if someone is trying to physically harm you, say beat the crap out of you, and you shoot him dead out of nowhere, that might be an aggression, but you show a gun to him and he continues and if you demonstrate reasonable that the guy never stopped initiating aggression and it became necessary to shoot him then no court will hold you responsible for the murder.

Stop acting like one of those Texans who shot a bunch of thugs who were running away from his neighbor's property. It may suit well for today's society, but its not fit for Libertarianism.

The main point is there are no hard and fast rules for this. If someone steps on your shoe intentionally there is NO WAY you will get to shoot him dead in a Libertarian society.

Just tell me this Ecolitan, do you believe in the fact that if aggression is made against you, it does not give you a right to "initiate"(not respond, but initiate) aggression against the other person??

If your accountant runs away with your money, and you go to his house and rape his wife, have you merely "responded" to the aggression or "initiated" the aggression??

[NHArticleTen]

You are at max allowed to respond to the aggression with the SAME AMOUNT OR LESS aggression as it was done against you.

Bullshit.  If someone is trying to physically harm me I can do whatever I have to to make him stop.  If a 300lb man is throwing punches at me I'm not going to try to punch him back, that would be worthless, I'm going to try to make him incapable of throwing more punches as quickly and efficiently as possible.

Doing equal damage as has been done to you is vengeance and biblical eye for an eye bullshit.  Rendering them incapable of doing more damage is defense.

I don't give a damn to bible(just to let you know), its a matter of Libertarian philosophy.

Secondly if someone is trying to physically harm you, say beat the crap out of you, and you shoot him dead out of nowhere, that might be an aggression, but you show a gun to him and he continues and if you demonstrate reasonable that the guy never stopped initiating aggression and it became necessary to shoot him then no court will hold you responsible for the murder.

Stop acting like one of those Texans who shot a bunch of thugs who were running away from his neighbor's property. It may suit well for today's society, but its not fit for Libertarianism.

The main point is there are no hard and fast rules for this. If someone steps on your shoe intentionally there is NO WAY you will get to shoot him dead in a Libertarian society.

Just tell me this Ecolitan, do you believe in the fact that if aggression is made against you, it does not give you a right to "initiate"(not respond, but initiate) aggression against the other person??

If your accountant runs away with your money, and you go to his house and rape his wife, have you merely "responded" to the aggression or "initiated" the aggression??

you are an idiot...

no one should entertain you anymore...

go eat shit

[Ecolitan]

Just tell me this Ecolitan, do you believe in the fact that if aggression is made against you, it does not give you a right to "initiate"(not respond, but initiate) aggression against the other person??

I'm a sovereign individual.  Any aggression against me is an act of war.  Any violence I return is not an initiation.  If a man steals my TV he has invaded my sovereign home and I have every reason to believe he will do it again.  He remains a danger to me.  I wouldn't choose to hunt down and kill a man who stole my TV and I would expect to be ostracized if i did, but I reserve the right.

You sure like that capital Libertarian.  What makes you think anyone here gives a damn about the LP?  Fucking sell outs.  Also, I checked the LP platform just now and it says nothing about the level of justifiable defensive force.

If a man accidentally steps on my shoe he's not a further threat to me and harming him would not be an act of self-defense.

Stop acting like one of those Texans

FUCK YOU BIGOT!  DON'T TELL ME WHAT TO OR NOT TO DO.

GOD BLESS MOTHERFUCKING TEXAS!

[NHArticleTen]

Just tell me this Ecolitan, do you believe in the fact that if aggression is made against you, it does not give you a right to "initiate"(not respond, but initiate) aggression against the other person??

I'm a sovereign individual.  Any aggression against me is an act of war.  Any violence I return is not an initiation.  If a man steals my TV he has invaded my sovereign home and I have every reason to believe he will do it again.  He remains a danger to me.  I wouldn't choose to hunt down and kill a man who stole my TV and I would expect to be ostracized if i did, but I reserve the right.

You sure like that capital Libertarian.  What makes you think anyone here gives a damn about the LP?  Fucking sell outs.  Also, I checked the LP platform just now and it says nothing about the level of justifiable defensive force.

If a man accidentally steps on my shoe he's not a further threat to me and harming him would not be an act of self-defense.

Stop acting like one of those Texans

FUCK YOU BIGOT!  DON'T TELL ME WHAT TO OR NOT TO DO.

GOD BLESS MOTHERFUCKING TEXAS!

Long Live The Republic of Texas!

Chime!

[KDus]

I hope you will all have the courtesy to post a sign, so I will know where you stand on this. Then, I can choose to live far enough away that my children won't end up on your property. Please, include English on your sign so I'll know what language to teach my kids.
I will not use more force than that which is used against me. So your wife is safe from me should your child trespass on my yard.

and I don't care if you're little red riding hood dressed as a wolf...or a wolf dressed as little red riding hood...

perhaps you've forgotten those little Vietnamese kids throwing grenades into the medivac choppers?


I haven't...

That was not an initiation of force.

[NHArticleTen]

I hope you will all have the courtesy to post a sign, so I will know where you stand on this. Then, I can choose to live far enough away that my children won't end up on your property. Please, include English on your sign so I'll know what language to teach my kids.
I will not use more force than that which is used against me. So your wife is safe from me should your child trespass on my yard.

and I don't care if you're little red riding hood dressed as a wolf...or a wolf dressed as little red riding hood...

perhaps you've forgotten those little Vietnamese kids throwing grenades into the medivac choppers?


I haven't...

That was not an initiation of force.

you're kidding right?

throwing grenades isn't an initiation of an explosion and flying shrapnel?

kids running up to choppers in vietnam=dead

(hey kid, you should be running away from gunships...not towards them)

[Kevin Freeheart]

Shooting the girl is aesthetically displeasing. I wouldn't do it.

I'm a bit fuzzier now on what I think the ethical position of it is. I'm an absoluteist. Property is the result of self-ownership. Just as I believe a 0.00001% tax would be WRONG and would JUSTIFY the use of defensive force to prevent, I believe something as simple as TRESSPASS is a violation of property rights which is EQUAL in my eyes to any other assault on property rights (like setting fire to my house or stealing my car).

To me, this is a matter of the nature of PROPERTY. Rothbard takes the position that a person can sell certain parts of property ownership. With his absurd logic, I could sell you a wooden plank, but NOT sell you the right to cut it. Rather than a contractual agreement NOT to cut it, Rothbard would say you actually don' OWN the right to cut it.

I disagree with that. Something about the nature of "ownership" is more absolute in my mind. One either has all rights to property, or one doesn't actually own it.

So... With that said... IF I don't have the ability to defend my property from invasion, I don't own it. Since most libertarians would agree that I DO own my property, the question then is "is the use of force against an invasion of your property acceptable?"

Either yes, it is, and the girl should ethically be eligible for a bullet. Or "no, it is not ethical" and the arsonist wouldn't be either.

I'm not a pascifist but there's something wrong with the idea to me that an act of aggression makes you loose the right you agrees AGAINST. ALL "right" come from self-ownership, and ownership is absolute. There's no "little" crime.

[blackie]

I disagree with that. Something about the nature of "ownership" is more absolute in my mind. One either has all rights to property, or one doesn't actually own it.

So you don't believe in deed restrictions?

[Bill Brasky]

Well, its been clearly decided you can thrash 'em around a bit, if you determine they may pose a minor threat to sentient beings who are too stupid to escape their clutches.

So why the hell not.  Kill the bitch.  And fuck her corpse up the ass. 

[hellbilly]

...y'all remember how most folks glanced at Ron Paul, back during his campaign, like he was some sort of nut?

Well it might be because the so-called Libertarian crowd carries on debates about topics full of whimsical fancy such as this with great enthusiasm.. as if the scenario actually fucking has a place in reality!

Yeah I know.. nobody asked me, if I don't like it I can skip the thread..yeahyeahyeah..

Fact is it's sad to see so much energy, from so many people who "get it", go towards bullshit. There's a couple things going on, out "IRL", that maybe could be dwelled upon a 'lil bit.

[Richard Garner]

To me, this is a matter of the nature of PROPERTY. Rothbard takes the position that a person can sell certain parts of property ownership. With his absurd logic, I could sell you a wooden plank, but NOT sell you the right to cut it. Rather than a contractual agreement NOT to cut it, Rothbard would say you actually don' OWN the right to cut it.

That is because all rights are property rights. So if I have a contractual right that you refrain from cutting the plank I sell you, I own that right.

[quoteI disagree with that. Something about the nature of "ownership" is more absolute in my mind. One either has all rights to property, or one doesn't actually own it.[/quote]

Really? So I can't sell fishing rights on my property, or I can't sell the right to collect fallen firewood on my property? Surely I don't own my property if I am not entitled to sell these rights.

[NHArticleTen]

I disagree with that. Something about the nature of "ownership" is more absolute in my mind. One either has all rights to property, or one doesn't actually own it.

So you don't believe in deed restrictions?

as long as it's a voluntary, full-disclosure, private contract between sentient actors and not some boiler-plate crap between corporations and/or other fictions...sounds alright...