The Free Talk Live BBS

Free Talk Live => The Show => Topic started by: Spideynw on April 13, 2009, 04:45:09 PM

Title: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: Spideynw on April 13, 2009, 04:45:09 PM
On the show the other night, I think Friday, they were talking about how the law would resolve shooting a girl for being on your property, for nothing more than being on your property.

For the law to be just, it has to be equitable.  This scenario deals with the property rights of two individuals.  The girl owns her body, even though she is on the property of someone else.   Or at the least, the parents own their girls body.  And then the owner of the land is the property owner of the land.  Shooting someone for just being on your land would be considered excessive, in a civilized society.  I never heard anyone on the show arguing about the fact that the girl, or at the least the girl's parents, owned her body.  So the purpose of the law would be in resolving the property violations, the one being the girl trespassing, and the second being the land owner destroying the girls property, her body and life.  I think just about any reasonable judge would say that taking a life is far worse than trespassing, and that the action taken by the land owner was far in excess of what the land owner should have done.

As to the solution being "democratic", it most definitely would not be "democratic".  Democratic would be the majority imposing their will on the minority.  The man who shot the girl could accept the courts decision, whatever it is, as well as the people who brought the suit.  Or, either party could still disregard the decision, in which case they would be giving up the protection of a "fair" court of law.  In this case, if the man who shot the girl decides to disregard the decision, he would be opening himself up to some other kind of retaliation from the offended party (the parents).  If they decide to kill him for retaliation, then the case would go to court and the whole process started again, but probably with not as stiff a sentence than if he had complied with the court.  If, on the other hand, they decide to kill him, even though he complied with the court, then they would go to court, and they would probably face a pretty stiff sentence.  Regardless, it has nothing really to do with being democratic.
Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: Ecolitan on April 13, 2009, 05:05:38 PM
Your land is like your pocket.  You own what's in it.  If I put something in your pocket than I gave it to you.  If I put myself on your land than I must be gifting myself to you.  Why would you shoot a girl you own?
Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: mikehz on April 13, 2009, 05:44:47 PM
Your land is like your pocket.  You own what's in it.  If I put something in your pocket than I gave it to you.  If I put myself on your land than I must be gifting myself to you.  Why would you shoot a girl you own?

Very poor analogy. For one thing, your land is nothing like your pocket. For another, just because someone crosses my property, there is no reason to suppose I "own" them, or can dispose of them in any manner I wish.

I agree with the caller (whose name I forget) that both the property owner and the girl likely belong to a DRO, which has clauses covering this sort of thing. It is almost inconceivable that any DRO is going to authorize the murdering of little girls!
Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: Dylboz on April 13, 2009, 06:31:13 PM
Once again, the insanity of extreme "Royal Prerogative" libertarianism rears it's ugly head. You can't own people, not your kids, and certainly not someone who wanders onto your property. Mere trespass is never grounds for murder. The proper reaction is for the parents to lead an angry mob armed with shotguns and pitchforks onto his property to seize the guy and hang him from the nearest tree. He's a murderer who forfeited his rights when he shot and killed a girl who posed him no threat and did him no harm, nor damaged his property. Once he's been disposed of, the girl's parents then inherit the property as recompense for the loss of their child's life. Problem solved (and something for the next jack-off with an itchy trigger finger to think about when he happens upon some lost little girl on his back 40).
Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: Spideynw on April 13, 2009, 06:50:06 PM
Just to clarify, parents "ownership" of their children is not the same as ownership of other pieces of property.  If you would be happy to call it "stewardship" instead, fine.  But children do not have full rights at birth, and parents are the ones that would have to bring charges against others on their behalf.  And the relationship would be akin to property.
Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: fatcat on April 14, 2009, 07:57:49 PM
Once again, the insanity of extreme "Royal Prerogative" libertarianism rears it's ugly head. You can't own people, not your kids, and certainly not someone who wanders onto your property. Mere trespass is never grounds for murder.

I was with you right up untill all the mindless vigilante execution stuff.

Quote
The proper reaction is for the parents to lead an angry mob armed with shotguns and pitchforks onto his property to seize the guy and hang him from the nearest tree. He's a murderer who forfeited his rights when he shot and killed a girl who posed him no threat and did him no harm, nor damaged his property. Once he's been disposed of, the girl's parents then inherit the property as recompense for the loss of their child's life. Problem solved (and something for the next jack-off with an itchy trigger finger to think about when he happens upon some lost little girl on his back 40).

ugh...

executing murderers doesn't "solve", anything, it doesn't bring back the person they murdered, it doesn't help in anyway to restitute for the crime, unless you count "making you feel better" as restitution, and that for any amount of restitution, you're allowed to do whatever you want so long as it makes you feel better

So next time someone steals from me, I'm going to rip out their teeth, and sell them on ebay to repay what was stolen from me.

Oh wait, thats fucking stupid, and barbaric.

The only appropriate, moral, and civilized use of violence is to stop violence.

And that isn't an invitation to pull out the bullshit "we need to kill murderers so they don't do it again". Besides the obvious future crime bullshit, why don't we start cutting the hands off thieves? Because we're not fucking savages, or at least I'm not.
Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: Dylboz on April 14, 2009, 08:33:31 PM
Once again, the insanity of extreme "Royal Prerogative" libertarianism rears it's ugly head. You can't own people, not your kids, and certainly not someone who wanders onto your property. Mere trespass is never grounds for murder.

I was with you right up untill all the mindless vigilante execution stuff.

Quote
The proper reaction is for the parents to lead an angry mob armed with shotguns and pitchforks onto his property to seize the guy and hang him from the nearest tree. He's a murderer who forfeited his rights when he shot and killed a girl who posed him no threat and did him no harm, nor damaged his property. Once he's been disposed of, the girl's parents then inherit the property as recompense for the loss of their child's life. Problem solved (and something for the next jack-off with an itchy trigger finger to think about when he happens upon some lost little girl on his back 40).

ugh...

executing murderers doesn't "solve", anything, it doesn't bring back the person they murdered, it doesn't help in anyway to restitute for the crime, unless you count "making you feel better" as restitution, and that for any amount of restitution, you're allowed to do whatever you want so long as it makes you feel better

So next time someone steals from me, I'm going to rip out their teeth, and sell them on ebay to repay what was stolen from me.

Oh wait, thats fucking stupid, and barbaric.

The only appropriate, moral, and civilized use of violence is to stop violence.

And that isn't an invitation to pull out the bullshit "we need to kill murderers so they don't do it again". Besides the obvious future crime bullshit, why don't we start cutting the hands off thieves? Because we're not fucking savages, or at least I'm not.

I was being over the top for effect. I suppose it's up to the parents to decide how to proceed, but I do think the guy has forfeited any rights he had claim to by committing the murder. So if it's bloody retribution they want, I can't really argue with them. What would you intend to do with the guy, fatcat? If they kick him off his land and take his house after some trial or whatever, what's to stop him from just coming back and murdering them too? You have this almost pathological aversion to even the appearance of violence.  There is a profound difference between aggressive and defensive violence, and there are important concepts like guilt and innocence that enter into these questions. If you eschew all violence, then you will be a victim before you know it, and you'll keep being victimized until you stand up for yourself. Whether you want to be a savage or not is immaterial. A murder is not concerned with being civilized, he's demonstrated a total disregard for the values of civilization. Do you think he'll just see the light after a stern talking to from you? Sometimes, you have to use violence to deal with violent people. But, I ask you, what would you do with him, how would you keep people safe from him, why does he deserve to continue drawing breath?
Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: Dylboz on April 14, 2009, 08:38:49 PM

executing murderers doesn't "solve", anything, it doesn't bring back the person they murdered, it doesn't help in anyway to restitute for the crime, unless you count "making you feel better" as restitution, and that for any amount of restitution, you're allowed to do whatever you want so long as it makes you feel better


This is simply not true. It solves the problem of what to do with a guy who has demonstrated a total lack of respect for human life and a willingness to kill children in cold blood, it solves the problem of a murderer running around in your community, it solves the problem of the danger his continued existence poses to other children and humans. As for the "feeling better" part, you ignore proportionality. Stringing him up and taking his land as recompense is proportional to the crime. Tooth removal for sale on eBay is obviously not. Lack of proportionality is the reason this guy is a murderer in the first place! I know you're not that stupid, fatcat. Neither am I.
Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: Laetitia on April 14, 2009, 09:10:48 PM
I cringed when I heard this discussion the other day. I suppose it's good Ian & Mark keep getting these calls, because it gets people talking about it. I'm just not so sure it's good for changing anyone's mind on less government being a good thing.

Yes, the freedom to protect your property is the freedom to protect your property, whether it's your house or a patch of violets by your driveway. The thing is though, there are not a lot of people who are going to shoot a little girl picking flowers. Just because the gun control crowd can hold up the possibility it might happen is not enough reason for making more restrictions on firearm ownership. It's not possible to pass laws against every crazy thing somebody might do.

It's like the people ought to be able to own personal nukes because they have a right to arm themselves. When a professed lover of liberty and personal freedom makes a statement like "hell yes, I should be able to have a suitcase nuke tucked under my coffee table" or "shoot the little girl in pigtails - that's my flowerbed" it gives the pro-state side assurances they're right. And, it's extreme enough that many folks on the fence will hop over to their side, lest they choose the nutters who want to blow up little girls picking dandelion/violet/clover bouquets for their mommies.

***and now, back to my chains of servitude, aka entering medical & business expenses in TurboTax***  :cry:
Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: Spideynw on April 14, 2009, 09:19:39 PM
Individuals can already own nuclear weapons.  Laws don't stop people from owning things.  It is just that individuals are not interested in owning nuclear weapons.

[edit] It may be that they are too expensive to obtain.
Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: blackie on April 14, 2009, 09:27:41 PM
Individuals can already own nuclear weapons.  Laws don't stop people from owning things.  It is just that individuals are not interested in owning nuclear weapons.
I'd get one if I could.
Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: Ecolitan on April 15, 2009, 04:18:11 PM
Very poor analogy. For one thing, your land is nothing like your pocket.

How's it different?  Why are the rules of ownership different depending on the thing that is owned?  Is my car like my pocket?  My house?  My Rose Garden?  I can still shoot someone for coming in my house right?  What if my property is fenced?  Does that make it more like my house or does it need a roof before I can defend it from trespassers?  What if my car doesn't have a roof?  What if my house has big holes in the walls, a smaller space to solid matter ratio than a chain link fence perhaps but no an impenetrable wall either?  Can I still defend the interior with deadly force?  If not?  What is the magic space to to solid matter ratio that makes my house more inviolable than my yard?
Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: rwwright on April 15, 2009, 04:22:21 PM
Quote
You can't own... your kids...

You most certainly can. You own your kids until they assert their own self-ownership.
Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: Richard Garner on April 15, 2009, 04:31:24 PM
Quote
You can't own... your kids...

You most certainly can. You own your kids until they assert their own self-ownership.

I can destroy the things I own. other people may value them highly, but they being mine, I can destroy them if I want. Can I destroy my kids, then?
Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: Richard Garner on April 15, 2009, 04:37:12 PM
Your land is like your pocket.  You own what's in it.  If I put something in your pocket than I gave it to you.  If I put myself on your land than I must be gifting myself to you.  Why would you shoot a girl you own?

This can't be right, for the simple reason that I don't own whatever happens to be in my pocket. If I find your book and put it in my pocket, it is still your book, not mine.
Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: Dylboz on April 15, 2009, 04:39:29 PM
Quote
You can't own... your kids...

You most certainly can. You own your kids until they assert their own self-ownership.

This is the insanity that makes normal human beings look at me askance when I say I'm a libertarian. I hate this bullshit. I try to distance myself from the term self-ownership, because it implies that human lives are property, and since you can't transfer ownership of yourself, you can't be property, so "owning" yourself doesn't apply. It's a self-detonating concept, a thing cannot simultaneously BE and OWN property, nor can the thing being owned be the same as the thing doing the owning.. The concept of self lacks key features of property, so it's a poor metaphor, at best.
Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: NHArticleTen on April 15, 2009, 04:47:58 PM
Individuals can already own nuclear weapons.  Laws don't stop people from owning things.  It is just that individuals are not interested in owning nuclear weapons.
I'd get one if I could.

everybody knows you can make a dirty bomb with an old smoke detector(found in trash=$0.00) and a few other cheap/free things...

there are other sources of nuclear, biological, and chemical substances as well...for those who are so inclined...

those with the will and the intent can get their hands on nasty stuff...no matter what...

hell, a gallon of gasoline(siphoned from a parked car) and a bug sprayer(liberated from the local dump) can do ALOT-OF-DAMAGE...

.....

and, with reference to trespassers on your thousand acres...

how would anyone ever know whether they made it ONTO your property...or whether they made it OFF of your property...

or whether they were eaten by your tigers...or whether they fell down that old mineshaft...or...whatever...

I'd say if you've got your property fenced off(to keep the lions and tigers and bears in) and it's posted("no trespassing-violators will become dinner for lions, tigers, and bears...oh my")...

then trespassers get whatever they get...falling down a mineshaft...drowning in the river...getting eaten by the bears...whatever...

of course, others may conduct their own property as they see fit...

Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: Ecolitan on April 15, 2009, 05:09:18 PM
Your land is like your pocket.  You own what's in it.  If I put something in your pocket than I gave it to you.  If I put myself on your land than I must be gifting myself to you.  Why would you shoot a girl you own?

This can't be right, for the simple reason that I don't own whatever happens to be in my pocket. If I find your book and put it in my pocket, it is still your book, not mine.

If you put my book in your pocket w/o my permission it is still mine but if I put my book in your pocket.  It is yours.  You can certainly not be held responsible for returning it to me or preventing it from being harmed.   You entered into no such agreement.
Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: mikehz on April 15, 2009, 10:26:00 PM
Individuals can already own nuclear weapons.  Laws don't stop people from owning things.  It is just that individuals are not interested in owning nuclear weapons.
I'd get one if I could.

everybody knows you can make a dirty bomb with an old smoke detector(found in trash=$0.00) and a few other cheap/free things...

there are other sources of nuclear, biological, and chemical substances as well...for those who are so inclined...

those with the will and the intent can get their hands on nasty stuff...no matter what...

hell, a gallon of gasoline(siphoned from a parked car) and a bug sprayer(liberated from the local dump) can do ALOT-OF-DAMAGE...

.....

and, with reference to trespassers on your thousand acres...

how would anyone ever know whether they made it ONTO your property...or whether they made it OFF of your property...

or whether they were eaten by your tigers...or whether they fell down that old mineshaft...or...whatever...

I'd say if you've got your property fenced off(to keep the lions and tigers and bears in) and it's posted("no trespassing-violators will become dinner for lions, tigers, and bears...oh my")...

then trespassers get whatever they get...falling down a mineshaft...drowning in the river...getting eaten by the bears...whatever...

of course, others may conduct their own property as they see fit...



Some years back, "Reader's Digest" did a story about a teenager who developed an interest in nuclear physics. He wanted to do some experimenting, and so needed some radioactive material. He wrote to numerous labs and had not trouble obtaining a whole bunch of old smoke detectors and other devices containing radiological elements. He got enough material that, had he wished, he could have manufactured a sizable radiological weapon.

That, fortunately, was not his goal. But, somehow the authorities found out about it, and raided his house.
Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: NHArticleTen on April 16, 2009, 10:09:48 AM
Individuals can already own nuclear weapons.  Laws don't stop people from owning things.  It is just that individuals are not interested in owning nuclear weapons.
I'd get one if I could.

everybody knows you can make a dirty bomb with an old smoke detector(found in trash=$0.00) and a few other cheap/free things...

there are other sources of nuclear, biological, and chemical substances as well...for those who are so inclined...

those with the will and the intent can get their hands on nasty stuff...no matter what...

hell, a gallon of gasoline(siphoned from a parked car) and a bug sprayer(liberated from the local dump) can do ALOT-OF-DAMAGE...

.....

and, with reference to trespassers on your thousand acres...

how would anyone ever know whether they made it ONTO your property...or whether they made it OFF of your property...

or whether they were eaten by your tigers...or whether they fell down that old mineshaft...or...whatever...

I'd say if you've got your property fenced off(to keep the lions and tigers and bears in) and it's posted("no trespassing-violators will become dinner for lions, tigers, and bears...oh my")...

then trespassers get whatever they get...falling down a mineshaft...drowning in the river...getting eaten by the bears...whatever...

of course, others may conduct their own property as they see fit...



Some years back, "Reader's Digest" did a story about a teenager who developed an interest in nuclear physics. He wanted to do some experimenting, and so needed some radioactive material. He wrote to numerous labs and had not trouble obtaining a whole bunch of old smoke detectors and other devices containing radiological elements. He got enough material that, had he wished, he could have manufactured a sizable radiological weapon.

That, fortunately, was not his goal. But, somehow the authorities found out about it, and raided his house.

perhaps the bigger thought/point/object/lesson/etc. here...is...

here we have a person(regardless of "age") who is interested in a particular science...

in the free market he could/would be invited and ENCOURAGED to join others already working on similar/same types of research...

in the current environment he would get jackbooted for just opening a lemonade stand...

let alone trying to further scientific knowledge and achievements to better mankind...

fucking mobocracy looter minions anyways...

ask how I really feel...

Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: blackie on April 16, 2009, 06:00:37 PM
Individuals can already own nuclear weapons.  Laws don't stop people from owning things.  It is just that individuals are not interested in owning nuclear weapons.
I'd get one if I could.

everybody knows you can make a dirty bomb with an old smoke detector(found in trash=$0.00) and a few other cheap/free things...

there are other sources of nuclear, biological, and chemical substances as well...for those who are so inclined...
I don't want a dirty bomb or bio weapon. I want tactical nukes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_nuclear_weapons).

Quote
The uses on the battlefield for TNWs would include:
Against a large ground force
Against a fortified underground bunker
Against remote and/or heavily-defended target locations difficult or impossible to reach with conventional weapons
Against a carrier battle group or any collection of surface vessels
Against a large amphibious invasion force
Against a 100+ vehicle supply convoy
Against a squadron of strategic bombers
Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: fatcat on April 16, 2009, 09:01:23 PM
This is simply not true. It solves the problem of what to do with a guy who has demonstrated a total lack of respect for human life and a willingness to kill children in cold blood, it solves the problem of a murderer running around in your community, it solves the problem of the danger his continued existence poses to other children and humans. As for the "feeling better" part, you ignore proportionality. Stringing him up and taking his land as recompense is proportional to the crime. Tooth removal for sale on eBay is obviously not. Lack of proportionality is the reason this guy is a murderer in the first place! I know you're not that stupid, fatcat. Neither am I.

I was extending the analogy of tooth pulling as unnecessary and barbaric form of justice.

Pulling teeth to pay repairs for someone who smashed up your car will "solve" the problem, the point is, there is more than one way to deal with an issue, and violence shouldn't be used except to stop violence (or in consensual uses).

And as I pointed out in my post, the whole "stopping crimes in the future" is classic future crimes bullshit which I shouldn't need to go into. I could use the same bullshit logic to profer crippling of thieves, or monitoring of all ex-cons, etc.

Point is, execution doesn't make anything better, than that which can be achieved by moral, civilized means, and ultimately, a live person can do more to make up for a crime than a dead one.

Quote
Stringing him up and taking his land as recompense is proportional to the crime.

No its not.

What part of stringing him up is in anyway recompense for taking a life?

As I already mentioned, executing a person does nothing to pay someone back for anything, and thus cannot be a form of compensation or restitution(especially if you count the cost of an execution).

The only way you can wangle it, is that if you think "feeling better" or "feeling better via revenge", can be compensation for a crime, and then who decides what is "enough" to make someone feel better? If you stab me in the kidney do I get to have your penis amputated because thats the only thing I say will make me feel better?

Firstly, its a completely subjective standard, which justice should absolutely not be about. If you steal from me, you owe me what you stole, and under some systems, you owe me what you stole, plus interest, plus what it cost to get back what you stole.

Obviously taking a life is of near inestimable value. Since we currently don't have the technology to resurrect people, so the compensation is practically infinite, which could translate to imprisonment in a labor camp, with all of the prisoners wealth generation going into resurrection technology, or something both parties agree on.

If someone steals a candy bar from you, there is an inherit limit to what you deserve in compensation.

The criminal cannot avoid his responsibility for restitution, but likewise, the victim cannot demand absolutely anything for compensation. Parties should be able to come to any understanding they want, but if theres a disagreement, theres a baseline for each party. One who owes and one who is owed.

You have done nothing to address this core point, besides the fact its immoral to kill someone when you don't have to.

If during the point of you trying to get compensated, the murderer tries to hurt you or other people, then by all means, use force against him, but if someones willing to repay for the harm they've done, they should not be used.

If its okay to use force, i.e. execute a murderer, for that crime, because it satisfies justice under the guise of "revenge", then why can't victims use force for other crimes? Lets go back to the candy bar analogy.

1 candybar theft is equivalent to what? A kick in the nuts? Chinese burn?

As you can see, this thing is totally subjective, but when it comes to murder, theres a very shallow reciprocation of "eye for an eye" thats easy to fall into. How about rape for a rape? You'd probably say that, it would be perfectly just for the guy to just pay back for the candy bar, theres not need to use violence, it wouldn't serve anything, except to satiate petty violent urges.

What if the guy can't pay the candy bar back? Do you get to kill him then? No, you'll work out some way of him working. What if its a african peasant who trashes a million dollar sports car? Theres no way he will earn that amount of wealth in his lifetime, but as victim, you'd still deserve whatever he could afford to pay untill he payed you back or died.

The same thing goes for murderers. Stealing a life is magnitudes worse than stealing a candy bar, people are incredibly valuable, in a tangible and sentimental, but justice should always be about healing the victim, not meting out punishments.

Prisons can be run at a profit, so the idea that we need to execute murderers to keep people safe is ridiculous

Not happy with the candybar analogy? Maybe you're gonna say something like, when you initiate force on someone, you lose your right not to have violence used on you. So are you consistent with other violent crimes? If someone breaks your arm, can you break theirs back? What if they were sorry afterwards and offered to pay you back? What if it was an accident?

If the person doesn't agree to deal with their crimes, and use force to avoid it, then sure, feed your blood lust, but having defacto "eye for an eye, life for a life" is a banner under which terrible barbarism can be commited.

People in favor of execution are just giving in to base evolutionary drives that say hurt people who hurt you, and especially hurt people who hurt your family.
Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: blackie on April 16, 2009, 09:11:27 PM
People in favor of execution are just giving in to base evolutionary drives that say hurt people who hurt you, and especially hurt people who hurt your family.
You say that like evolutionary drives are a bad thing. I trust evolution.
Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: KDus on April 16, 2009, 09:16:12 PM
Your land is like your pocket.  You own what's in it.  If I put something in your pocket than I gave it to you.  If I put myself on your land than I must be gifting myself to you.  Why would you shoot a girl you own?
NO.
Possession doesn't equal ownership.
Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: Harry Tuttle on April 17, 2009, 12:37:35 AM
Jesus Christ!!!!! I can't believe someone's imagination can be so limited as to entertain the idea that it is government made laws that keep men from shooting little girls who cross their land. There might be the occasional whack job who would think to kill a child (as there is now) and their treatment from society would be not much different than it is now, except those investigating would be dressed differently and those who administer justice would be judged and held accountable.

As for some garbage about the complexity of knowing the rules someone has for their property, it wouldn't be much different than now. If you lit up a cigarette in my house, for example, I would politely ask you not to smoke in my house. If you refused to stop I would invite you to leave. If you refused to leave there would be a commotion. Of course that is a silly scenario. These types of things don't tend to happen because humans like to get along and tend to treat each other with respect.
Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: NHArticleTen on April 17, 2009, 11:11:56 AM
Jesus Christ!!!!! I can't believe someone's imagination can be so limited as to entertain the idea that it is government made laws that keep men from shooting little girls who cross their land. There might be the occasional whack job who would think to kill a child (as there is now) and their treatment from society would be not much different than it is now, except those investigating would be dressed differently and those who administer justice would be judged and held accountable.

As for some garbage about the complexity of knowing the rules someone has for their property, it wouldn't be much different than now. If you lit up a cigarette in my house, for example, I would politely ask you not to smoke in my house. If you refused to stop I would invite you to leave. If you refused to leave there would be a commotion. Of course that is a silly scenario. These types of things don't tend to happen because humans like to get along and tend to treat each other with respect.


very very well said!

kudos

Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: fatcat on April 17, 2009, 01:47:51 PM
People in favor of execution are just giving in to base evolutionary drives that say hurt people who hurt you, and especially hurt people who hurt your family.
You say that like evolutionary drives are a bad thing. I trust evolution.

You say that like my entire point was infering that anything thats an evolutionary drive is bad. there is also a strong evolutionary drive to help other people, and in that case our base drives can coexist with more reasoned motives, but at the points where we feel urged to something that isn't moral, or reasonable, we should over-ride what we feel with what we can reason to be a better choice.

The point is, its a perfectly natural, evolutionarily advantageous response, to want to hurt people who try to hurt you or your family.
Evolution has been selecting that kind of behavior in animals for millions of years, and in humans for tens of thousands.

But it doesn't make it moral, and now that we have the capacity to think above our basest urges, we should choose a higher path, one based on reason, not raw emotion and bloodlust.

I have yet to hear a coherent rebuttle for the points made in my previous mega-post about how violence and subjective revenge cannot be part of any objectively fair judicial process, and that no one consistently applies the revenge=justice mantra, they only apply it in cases where it fits their primitive blood lust .i.e. when a family member is raped or murdered, or when they can empathise with other murders as if it was one of "their own.
Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: Ecolitan on April 17, 2009, 02:09:48 PM
Your land is like your pocket.  You own what's in it.  If I put something in your pocket than I gave it to you.  If I put myself on your land than I must be gifting myself to you.  Why would you shoot a girl you own?
NO.
Possession doesn't equal ownership.

WTF is wrong w/ you people?  I expected a couple of noobs to think I was serious.

Mike,
Very poor analogy. For one thing, your land is nothing like your pocket.

How's it different?  Why are the rules of ownership different depending on the thing that is owned?  Is my car like my pocket?  My house?  My Rose Garden?  I can still shoot someone for coming in my house right?  What if my property is fenced?  Does that make it more like my house or does it need a roof before I can defend it from trespassers?  What if my car doesn't have a roof?  What if my house has big holes in the walls, a smaller space to solid matter ratio than a chain link fence perhaps but no an impenetrable wall either?  Can I still defend the interior with deadly force?  If not?  What is the magic space to to solid matter ratio that makes my house more inviolable than my yard?


Title: NOT ALLOWED under proportionality of punishment and crime
Post by: prashantpawar on April 17, 2009, 02:17:17 PM
First of all, Libertarians must understand when you get a question like this:
In a Libertarian society would it be justified to shoot a little flower picking girl/80 yr old senile grandma/a mentally disabled who ventured into your property?

first remove the "catch" of the question. This question is intended to trap you, and if you try to answer it the way a person puts it to you, you will never be able to satisfy the person who asks that question. Marc and Ian must learn not to get trapped into these kinds of questions in the show.

So answer this question first:
In a Libertarian society would it be justified to shoot anyone who ventured into your property, accidentally/intentionally?

The answer is, NO you do not have a right to shoot a person who came on to your property, that is an act of initiation of aggression. You are at max allowed to respond to the aggression with the SAME AMOUNT OR LESS aggression as it was done against you.

That means:


Once you answer that question, see if the "catch" of the original question really changes anything. For example, killing a girl/senile grandma/mentally challenged person does not changes the fact that it was an act of aggression.

On the other hand if it DOES change the fact, for example what if a 10 yr girl comes to your property and shoots your son, do you now get to punish her?
It might be difficult to answer that kind of question, but DO REMEMBER TO CHECK how current society handles that problem. Currently if a 10 yr old girl commits that crime she is considered as a juvenile delinquent, it depends if she understood what she did. If she understood what she did and the repercussions of her actions(say the crime was stealing someone's bike, now 10 yr old understand that stealing is wrong, as compared to say she lifted a gun and pointed to someone and shot from it), then she has the responsibility of the crime. She may or may not be punished for that at that time(like if she stole someone's bike or destroyed it, then her bike must be taken away, but say if its a murder and she knew what she was doing and the punishment might go a bit serious) then she may or may not be punished until she grows up and falls into the category of a grown up adult(as it happens in some cases today where a 17 yr old delinquent is not sent to a jail until he is 18).

The main point is, there is no such thing as a person below 18 yr of age is not responsible for his actions in any way or cannot give consent. In the common law system there was no such rule or law that a person below 18 yrs of age is not responsible for anything he or she does. It totally depended upon what kind of understanding that person has.
Title: Re: NOT ALLOWED under proportionality of punishment and crime
Post by: NHArticleTen on April 17, 2009, 02:23:56 PM
First of all, Libertarians must understand when you get a question like this:
In a Libertarian society would it be justified to shoot a little flower picking girl/80 yr old senile grandma/a mentally disabled who ventured into your property?

first remove the "catch" of the question. This question is intended to trap you, and if you try to answer it the way a person puts it to you, you will never be able to satisfy the person who asks that question. Marc and Ian must learn not to get trapped into these kinds of questions in the show.

So answer this question first:
In a Libertarian society would it be justified to shoot anyone who ventured into your property, accidentally/intentionally?

The answer is, NO you do not have a right to shoot a person who came on to your property, that is an act of initiation of aggression. You are at max allowed to respond to the aggression with the SAME AMOUNT OR LESS aggression as it was done against you.

That means:
  • If a person scams you of money/property,
    you have a right to get money back(no more)+compensation.
  • If a person slaps you,
    you have a right to slap him back(or get him slapped by someone you hired) or get monetary restitution worth the crime.
  • If a person kills your dog,
    you have the right to kill his dog or take him and keep it, or ask for monetary restitution(never both).
  • If a person rapes your daughter,
    you have the right to rape him(or have him raped) or get monetary restitution worth his crime.
  • If a person kills you,
    your estate has a right to have him killed or get monetary restitution worth the crime(depending upon your will).
  • If a person walks into your property picking flowers,
    you have a right to demand flowers from his property, or monetary restitution worth the crime.
  • If a person slaps you, and you slap him twice,
    that person has a right to slap you once back, or have you slapped or get monetary restitution because now you are the aggressor.
  • If a little girl walks into your property, and you shoot her dead,
    the parents/guardians have a right to have you killed or make you pay restitution for the death of that girl.
  • If a person walks into your home, and holds a gun on your head, and you shoot him dead,
    you have done no aggression, because a reasonable threat of violence was present, though final judgment would be a matter of fact decided by the courts.
  • If a person(with gun) walks into your home, and your door clearly says "No guns allowed without owner's permission", and you shoot him dead without any warning,
    you have done aggression against him(though it depends how you demonstrate a credible threat of violence to the courts, that is if his hand was on gun and trigger, you look better, if he was no where near his gun, then you look bad).


Once you answer that question, see if the "catch" of the original question really changes anything. For example, killing a girl/senile grandma/mentally challenged person does not changes the fact that it was an act of aggression.

On the other hand if it DOES change the fact, for example what if a 10 yr girl comes to your property and shoots your son, do you now get to punish her?
It might be difficult to answer that kind of question, but DO REMEMBER TO CHECK how current society handles that problem. Currently if a 10 yr old girl commits that crime she is considered as a juvenile delinquent, it depends if she understood what she did. If she understood what she did and the repercussions of her actions(say the crime was stealing someone's bike, now 10 yr old understand that stealing is wrong, as compared to say she lifted a gun and pointed to someone and shot from it), then she has the responsibility of the crime. She may or may not be punished for that at that time(like if she stole someone's bike or destroyed it, then her bike must be taken away, but say if its a murder and she knew what she was doing and the punishment might go a bit serious) then she may or may not be punished until she grows up and falls into the category of a grown up adult(as it happens in some cases today where a 17 yr old delinquent is not sent to a jail until he is 18).

The main point is, there is no such thing as a person below 18 yr of age is not responsible for his actions in any way or cannot give consent. In the common law system there was no such rule or law that a person below 18 yrs of age is not responsible for anything he or she does. It totally depended upon what kind of understanding that person has.

what about the guy who trespasses, slaps you in the face as he walks by, shoots your dog on his way inside to rape your daughter and murder your wife as she tries to help out your daughter?

I'm telling you RIGHT THE FUCK NOW...

I'M NOT WAITING FOR THE TRESPASSER TO BECOME A SLAPPER OR A DOG KILLER OR A RAPIST OR A MURDERER...

IF YOU TRESPASS WILLINGLY...I WILL ALWAYS ASSUME THAT ASSAULT/RAPE/MURDER IS AFOOT...

AND YOU WILL SUFFER AS LONG AS I AM ABLE TO BRING SUFFERING TO THE FIGHT...

LIVE FREE OR DIE...


any questions?


fucking looters anyways!

Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: NHArticleTen on April 17, 2009, 02:26:57 PM

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...


Title: Re: NOT ALLOWED under proportionality of punishment and crime
Post by: Ecolitan on April 17, 2009, 02:27:02 PM
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.
Title: Re: NOT ALLOWED under proportionality of punishment and crime
Post by: Richard Garner on April 17, 2009, 02:36:17 PM
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.
Title: Re: NOT ALLOWED under proportionality of punishment and crime
Post by: prashantpawar on April 17, 2009, 02:43:26 PM
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??
Title: Re: NOT ALLOWED under proportionality of punishment and crime
Post by: NHArticleTen on April 17, 2009, 02:53:36 PM
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

Title: Re: NOT ALLOWED under proportionality of punishment and crime
Post by: Ecolitan on April 17, 2009, 02:59:15 PM
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.

Quote
Stop acting like one of those Texans

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

GOD BLESS MOTHERFUCKING TEXAS!

Title: Re: NOT ALLOWED under proportionality of punishment and crime
Post by: NHArticleTen on April 17, 2009, 03:05:29 PM
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.

Quote
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!

Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: KDus on April 17, 2009, 05:14:49 PM
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.
Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: NHArticleTen on April 17, 2009, 07:11:14 PM
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)

Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: Kevin Freeheart on April 17, 2009, 10:05:13 PM
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.
Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: blackie on April 17, 2009, 10:13:39 PM
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?
Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: Bill Brasky on April 17, 2009, 10:44:40 PM
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. 
Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: hellbilly on April 18, 2009, 01:07:39 AM
...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.
Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: Richard Garner on April 18, 2009, 07:09:10 AM
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.
Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: NHArticleTen on April 18, 2009, 08:39:48 AM
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...

Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: Richard Garner on April 18, 2009, 02:21:09 PM
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.

That's a contractual agreement, not a right. It's also the dumbest contractual agreement ever.

Whether it is dumb or not is irrelevent. It is, as you say, a contractual agreement. And the agreement creates a right. That is what contracts do.

Quote
Quote
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.

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.

That's just leasing.
[/quote]

No, leases have fixed terms. But even if it were just leasing, so what? It is still a right. If you come to me and say "I'd like the right to fish on your property, here is $100 to persuade you," and I say, "OK," you have the right to fish on my property, and I sold it to you.
Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: Dylboz on April 18, 2009, 07:17:20 PM
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)



Uh, Rob... get your shit straight. The kid in Vietnam was defending his home from aggression in the form of American gunships.
Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: Dylboz on April 18, 2009, 07:32:43 PM
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.

Your post demonstrates why "absolutism" (fixed the spelling for you) is fucking stupid. Context is key, and determines how to apply a principle in the real world, in an actual setting involving living beings. And no, walking across your field is not the same in any reasonable person's mind as committing arson or rape. Again, it's this kind of simpleton bullshit that makes people think libertarians are hopeless anti-social lunatics.
Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: Dylboz on April 18, 2009, 08:31:41 PM
Since no one seems to get the problem with this stupid hyper-propertarianism, I'm going to pose it as a question, something to think about. If every property owner has the "Royal Prerogative" over everything and everyone that steps onto their property, and need not respect their rights and can dispose of their lives as they see fit, then in what way have we improved upon the current statist situation? You get to be the evil statists yourselves? You get to privilege your property claims over the lives and rights of anyone who is within the geographical borders you claim and do all the terrible things that states do, but it's OK because you own the land? So, we've multiplied the problems of the state by several billion, solving nothing, while also dealing a profound blow to the liberty of anyone who doesn't own enough property to make a similar claim for themselves. You're saying they have no rights (save those you deign to grant them at your whim), when on your property, and you can kill them like they ARE your property, which is worse even than most states, who generally guarantee a minimum set of basic rights within their borders. If that's not the case, please explain it to me, because you child killers really sound like maniacs defending it.
Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: Andy on April 18, 2009, 08:48:27 PM
Quote
Since no one seems to get the problem with this stupid hyper-propertarianism

Where did you get that notion?
Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: Dylboz on April 18, 2009, 08:57:33 PM
Reading the thread. I meant a lot of the posters. In this thread.
Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: NHArticleTen on April 19, 2009, 11:43:08 AM
why is it so "unreasonable" to extend exclusive/exclusionary property rights past...let's say...a vagina...for example(since rape is such a common crime against the property more commonly referred to as your "body")...

what part of "no trespassing" is so hard to understand with reference to the vagina?

what part of "no trespassing" is so hard to understand with reference to the clothing on your body?

what part of "no trespassing" is so hard to understand with reference to the covered wagon or motor-vehicle or boat or airplane you own and are on/in?

what part of "no trespassing" is so hard to understand with reference to the place you call home?

what part of "no trespassing" is so hard to understand with reference to your homestead?

your vagina, your clothing, your conveyance, your home, your homestead...these are all equally YOUR PROPERTY...

what part of "NO TRESPASSING" and "SHALL NOT INFRINGE" is so hard to understand?

what part of "everyone leaves everyone else alone" is so hard to understand?

The John Galt Solution is the only solution...

enjoy!

Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: Dylboz on April 19, 2009, 01:13:35 PM
Everyone leave everyone else alone is fine. It refers to actual people, and jibes with our intuitions and common sense. What isn't fine is treating 40 acres of open land the same as the inside of your vagina, Rob. It's absurd.
Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: NHArticleTen on April 19, 2009, 01:37:53 PM
Everyone leave everyone else alone is fine. It refers to actual people, and jibes with our intuitions and common sense. What isn't fine is treating 40 acres of open land the same as the inside of your vagina, Rob. It's absurd.

It's only "absurd" to those who don't understand property rights...or those who want to infringe upon them...some way...some how...

AND...

Everyone leaves everyone else alone refers to everyone's property as well...not just "actual people"...

Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: Dylboz on April 19, 2009, 01:45:10 PM
Sorry, I don't want to infringe property rights, I just don't want idiots killing flower picking little girls and claiming they're "within their rights" because they happen to be inside some imaginary line on a map. You're irrational, Rob. Property is not the same as life. People aren't property. People own property. That's not the same thing. Property can be transfered, restored or replaced, lives cannot.

Besides, rights do not exist, they're simply reciprocal agreements between and among people within a given community. I would never agree to or wish to be part of a community that upheld that kind of right. Shooting innocent little girls who pose you no threat is simply unacceptable. And if a member of my community decided he had that right, well, I wrote about how I thought we should proceed above.
Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: NHArticleTen on April 19, 2009, 01:53:33 PM
Sorry, I don't want to infringe property rights, I just don't want idiots killing flower picking little girls and claiming they're "within their rights" because they happen to be inside some imaginary line on a map. You're irrational, Rob. Property is not the same as life. People aren't property. People own property. That's not the same thing. Property can be transfered, restored or replaced, lives cannot.

Besides, rights do not exist, they're simply reciprocal agreements between and among people within a given community. I would never agree to or wish to be part of a community that upheld that kind of right. Shooting innocent little girls who pose you no threat is simply unacceptable. And if a member of my community decided he had that right, well, I wrote about how I thought we should proceed above.

your rights end at the beginning of my fence...then the tigers take over after that...feel free to feed yourself to the tigers anytime...they're always hungry you know...

Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: NHArticleTen on April 19, 2009, 01:59:35 PM

oh, and there are alligators in the pond, lake, and moat also...

they're hungry too...if you'd like to go for a swim...

Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: NHArticleTen on April 19, 2009, 02:02:38 PM
and, of course, there are always these:

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f7/Mines_501556_fh000026.jpg)


hmmm....

Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: Ecolitan on April 19, 2009, 02:09:58 PM
Everyone leave everyone else alone is fine. It refers to actual people, and jibes with our intuitions and common sense. What isn't fine is treating 40 acres of open land the same as the inside of your vagina, Rob. It's absurd.


Well, I couldn't make the objectivist objectively explain why two objects are both fully owned but different rules apply to them.  So, I'll settle for you.

Why is it absurd?  Why is the ownership of one physical object subject to different rules than the ownership of a different physical object?  Is there any other kind of object besides land that has special ownership rules?  What about ball point pens? 
Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: Dylboz on April 19, 2009, 02:10:08 PM
Sometimes, you're such an idiot, NHAT. To the extent that you isolate your self (with land mines, really? Come on!) and have to create the goods you consume by your self or do without, you are POOR. Everyone CAN'T just leave everyone else alone ALL THE TIME. The market requires interaction, it requires commerce, communication, travel, what used to be called intercourse (of the non-sexual kind). So, when a girls scout knocks on your door with a wagon full of cookies, you don't just shoot her. If you don't want cookies, and you don't want her to come back next year, you say so, you don't hang her carcass from a tress at the end of your property line and roll her burning Radio Flyer down the hill into the village. You'd be RADed from that area poste haste, and with good cause.

Basic civility and the etiquette of market interaction require as much. And you're insane with your fixation on violence, it's as if all you want is an excuse to start firing and call it "defense," a reputation for which would likely be your undoing in a genuine free market. No one has hurt or threatened you by walking up your driveway asking for help because their car broke down up the street. It is NOT an act of aggression, until it becomes one (I'm a big fan of Clockwork Orange, so yeah, be careful, but don't just shoot first and ask questions later). Hopping your fence at night with a weapon and wearing a balaclava obviously is. The context is the key, and you're smart enough to know the difference, so don't give me this dumb shit about tigers, you don't have any fucking tigers, Rob.

And while we're talking here, "your rights end at the beginning of my fence..." is exactly the 'Royal Prerogative' problem I mentioned above. I have no rights at all if I'm on your property, so you're just a little absolute dictator on your mini-state. As I asked above, how is that NOT a multiplication of, as opposed to a solution to, the problems of the current statist horror? Go back and read my longer post and try and explain it to me. Otherwise, I'll just continue to think you're mostly nuts and mildly entertaining.
Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: Dylboz on April 19, 2009, 02:15:34 PM
Everyone leave everyone else alone is fine. It refers to actual people, and jibes with our intuitions and common sense. What isn't fine is treating 40 acres of open land the same as the inside of your vagina, Rob. It's absurd.


Well, I couldn't make the objectivist objectively explain why two objects are both fully owned but different rules apply to them.  So, I'll settle for you.

Why is it absurd?  Why is the ownership of one physical object subject to different rules than the ownership of a different physical object?  Is there any other kind of object besides land that has special ownership rules?  What about ball point pens? 

I was talking about the difference between humans and property. Your body is not the same as a pen, or land. I don't think a body is owned. A body is the necessary physical presence of an entity that owns property. Selves can't be owned, they do the owning of things, and a requirement for that is recognition of their status as moral agents capable of making reciprocal agreements about ownership and rights, which includes the integrity of that body. A key feature of property is the ability to transfer ownership, something that you absolutely cannot do with a self, which is inseparable from the body of which it is an emergent property. It may be useful to apply some of the same rules to the body that we'd use for property, but that should not conflate them. At best, treating the body as mere property is a poor analogy. At worst, the conflation leads to the sort of absurd conclusions that NHAT and others make.
Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: Ecolitan on April 19, 2009, 02:21:24 PM
Everyone leave everyone else alone is fine. It refers to actual people, and jibes with our intuitions and common sense. What isn't fine is treating 40 acres of open land the same as the inside of your vagina, Rob. It's absurd.


Well, I couldn't make the objectivist objectively explain why two objects are both fully owned but different rules apply to them.  So, I'll settle for you.

Why is it absurd?  Why is the ownership of one physical object subject to different rules than the ownership of a different physical object?  Is there any other kind of object besides land that has special ownership rules?  What about ball point pens? 

I was talking about the difference between humans and property. Your body is not the same as a pen, or land. I don't think a body is owned. A body is the necessary physical presence of an entity that owns property. Selves can't be owned, they do the owning of things, and a requirement for that is recognition of their status as moral agents capable of making reciprocal agreements about ownership and rights. A key feature of property is the ability to transfer ownership, something that you absolutely cannot do with a self, which is inseparable from the body of which it is an emergent property.

OK.   So now we know why it's not OK to shoot someone who violates your body, you don't own it.  However I still don't see how your 30 acres of corn is different from your car, or your GI Joe collection.
Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: Dylboz on April 19, 2009, 02:23:31 PM
OK.   So now we know why it's not OK to shoot someone who violates your body, you don't own it.  However I still don't see how your 30 acres of corn is different from your car, or your GI Joe collection.


I didn't say that, not in this thread, nor anywhere else. In fact, quite the opposite. If you're going to be dishonest, we're done here.
Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: Ecolitan on April 19, 2009, 02:26:55 PM
It was sarcasm.  I pointed out that you didn't come anywhere close to answering my question or even make that much sense.

You made the argument that a person doesn't own her vagina but that has nothing at all to do with their putt putt golf course.  Presumably a person still owns their putt putt golf course so why can't you shoot the girl?
Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: NHArticleTen on April 19, 2009, 02:30:12 PM
Sometimes, you're such an idiot, NHAT. To the extent that you isolate your self (with land mines, really? Come on!) and have to create the goods you consume by your self or do without, you are POOR. Everyone CAN'T just leave everyone else alone ALL THE TIME. The market requires interaction, it requires commerce, communication, travel, what used to be called intercourse (of the non-sexual kind). So, when a girls scout knocks on your door with a wagon full of cookies, you don't just shoot her. If you don't want cookies, and you don't want her to come back next year, you say so, you don't hang her carcass from a tress at the end of your property line and roll her burning Radio Flyer down the hill into the village. You'd be RADed from that area poste haste, and with good cause.

Basic civility and the etiquette of market interaction require as much. And you're insane with your fixation on violence, it's as if all you want is an excuse to start firing and call it "defense," a reputation for which would likely be your undoing in a genuine free market. No one has hurt or threatened you by walking up your driveway asking for help because their car broke down up the street. It is NOT an act of aggression, until it becomes one (I'm a big fan of Clockwork Orange, so yeah, be careful, but don't just shoot first and ask questions later). Hopping your fence at night with a weapon and wearing a balaclava obviously is. The context is the key, and you're smart enough to know the difference, so don't give me this dumb shit about tigers, you don't have any fucking tigers, Rob.

And while we're talking here, "your rights end at the beginning of my fence..." is exactly the 'Royal Prerogative' problem I mentioned above. I have no rights at all if I'm on your property, so you're just a little absolute dictator on your mini-state. As I asked above, how is that NOT a multiplication of, as opposed to a solution to, the problems of the current statist horror? Go back and read my longer post and try and explain it to me. Otherwise, I'll just continue to think you're mostly nuts and mildly entertaining.

I'm not isolated...I'm rich...I maintain a vault where people store their valuables and my tigers and alligators and land-mines and fences and moats keep the vault safe and secure...

People pay me handsomely for protecting their property...

Go figure....

Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: Ecolitan on April 19, 2009, 02:31:43 PM
and I don't have a moat or a vault.  I am poor and own only a ball point pen.

Do I get the same rights to defend my ball point pen that Rob does to defend the crown jewels?
Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: NHArticleTen on April 19, 2009, 02:39:00 PM
and I don't have a moat or a vault.  I am poor and own only a ball point pen.

Do I get the same rights to defend my ball point pen that Rob does to defend the crown jewels?

in NHAT-World...most definitely yes...property is sacred...

to wit, you should defend against pen theft as if your life depended on it...you can kill someone with a pen...if you doubt that then let someone drive one through your eye socket into your brain...and see how that feels...

if there is no blurriness...

there is only clarity...

fences make excellent neighbors...

an armed society is indeed a polite society...

enjoy!

Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: Dylboz on April 19, 2009, 02:46:20 PM
It was sarcasm.  I pointed out that you didn't come anywhere close to answering my question or even make that much sense.

You made the argument that a person doesn't own her vagina but that has nothing at all to do with their putt putt golf course.  Presumably a person still owns their putt putt golf course so why can't you shoot the girl?


You can't shoot the girl because there is no necessity to do so to protect your pen, or your vagina. You don't own her, can't own her, and therefore you can't dispose of her like property. So unless she is threatening your bodily integrity and your continued ability to own things like pens or putt-putt courses, then it's an indefensible act of aggression. If she takes your pen, take it back. If she escalates or resists, use whatever reasonable amount of force is necessary to reclaim your pen and prevent her from trying to take it again, mindful of the fact that she's just a little girl and probably has parents who love her very much.

The problem is, I think you have conflated property rights with the self integrity required to make property claims and have rights through reciprocal agreements. Property is not the basis of all rights, and not all rights are property rights. All rights extend from the basic respect individuals give each other to make such claims without violation or interference. That requires bodily integrity, since that's where the self resides. But property rights to pens and putt-putt courses are a step beneath that. Life, the life that is required to have a self that can make claims to rights or property, is something over and above property. They're not the same, but at times can be treated the same. It's that conflation that leads to the confusion.
Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: Dylboz on April 19, 2009, 02:47:52 PM
and I don't have a moat or a vault.  I am poor and own only a ball point pen.

Do I get the same rights to defend my ball point pen that Rob does to defend the crown jewels?

in NHAT-World...most definitely yes...property is sacred...

to wit, you should defend against pen theft as if your life depended on it...you can kill someone with a pen...if you doubt that then let someone drive one through your eye socket into your brain...and see how that feels...

if there is no blurriness...

there is only clarity...

fences make excellent neighbors...

an armed society is indeed a polite society...

enjoy!



You're a religious mystic who imbues inanimate objects with properties they do not have. It's as if they become inhabited by the spirit of those who claim to own them, which is not the case.
Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: NHArticleTen on April 19, 2009, 02:49:01 PM
of course, many human beings would love for the world to be incredibly blurry and fuzzy all the time...or at least when it benefits them and their hoards of looters...

and, for the most part, people continue to compromise and produce fuzzy and blurry societies...which end because of the fuzziness/blurriness/compromise/capitulation/etc.

then it all starts all over again...

fucking looters start looting again and the others put up with a little...and then more...and then more...until the looters either consume everything or they are refused and repelled...(only to start looting again soon if they aren't destroyed and eliminated for the betterment of all concerned)...

so...the real question is...

do you feel luck enough to get past the fences/moats/alligators/tigers/landmines/etc....?

well, do ya punk?

I'm guessin' I know which side of the fence you're gonna stay on...

and I'm guessin' that that little girl scout doesn't have anymore balls than you do either...

go figure...

fucking looters anyways...

Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: NHArticleTen on April 19, 2009, 02:51:18 PM
and I don't have a moat or a vault.  I am poor and own only a ball point pen.

Do I get the same rights to defend my ball point pen that Rob does to defend the crown jewels?

in NHAT-World...most definitely yes...property is sacred...

to wit, you should defend against pen theft as if your life depended on it...you can kill someone with a pen...if you doubt that then let someone drive one through your eye socket into your brain...and see how that feels...

if there is no blurriness...

there is only clarity...

fences make excellent neighbors...

an armed society is indeed a polite society...

enjoy!



You're a religious mystic who imbues inanimate objects with properties they do not have. It's as if they become inhabited by the spirit of those who claim to own them, which is not the case.

I bet you are smart enough not to be found on my property though...

or are you?

hmmm...

Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: Dylboz on April 19, 2009, 02:54:44 PM
I knew you would not, could not, answer the question. You just want to be the Grand Ahyatolla of your own little piece of land, Rob. Able to do what the state does, to decide who lives and dies, whose claims to rights and property you respect or don't, arbitrarily and however it suits you at the time, because their rights ended where your fence begins. Your only objection to the state's power is simply that it isn't yours. You're a caricature of yourself, the jackboot on your own estate.

Not my cup of tea. I like other people, I like culture, commerce and the market. I don't want to live in a bunker surrounded by mines. You enjoy yourself, I'll avoid you like the plague, which shouldn't be too hard if you really do what you say you want to do.
Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: NHArticleTen on April 19, 2009, 02:59:36 PM
I knew you would not, could not, answer the question. You just want to be the Grand Ahyatolla of your own little piece of land, Rob. Able to do what the state does, to decide who lives and dies, whose claims to rights and property you respect or don't, arbitrarily and however it suits you at the time, because their rights ended where your fence begins. Your only objection to the state's power is simply that it isn't yours. You're a caricature of yourself, the jackboot on your own estate.

Not my cup of tea. I like other people, I like culture, commerce and the market. I don't want to live in a bunker surrounded by mines. You enjoy yourself, I'll avoid you like the plague, which shouldn't be too hard if you really do what you say you want to do.

fortunately for some...
unfortunately for others...
there are others protecting property...
and doing it with very effective exclusivity...

(what question were you referring to?)

Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: Ecolitan on April 19, 2009, 03:10:14 PM
You can't shoot the girl because there is no necessity to do so to protect your pen, or your vagina.

But she IS a threat to my land.  It is consecrated land and no one who is not of the sacred tribe of Royce has ever stepped foot on it.  This must be remedied, or my gods will punish me and my progeny for a thousand generations.

The problem is, I think you have conflated property rights with the self integrity required to make property claims and have rights through reciprocal agreements.

the problem is, I think that you think I am for shooting the girl.  I am not but I'm not interested in stating my position and defending it.  Much more interested in someone having just one single principled argument that explains why it's OK to defend your Rolex with force but not your lawn.  ONE single principled reason why the ownership of the two objects don't follow the same rules.  I have mine.  What's yours?  

So we don't get too far off topic.  Here are the relevant quotes.

Quote from: Dylboz
What isn't fine is treating 40 acres of open land the same as the inside of your vagina, Rob. It's absurd.
 

Quote from: Mike the objective objectivist who can surely objectively explain the objective reason that these two objects should follow different rules of ownership
For one thing, your land is nothing like your pocket.
Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: Dylboz on April 19, 2009, 03:12:03 PM
You don't bother reading much either, do you Rob?

Anyway, when you equate life and property, despite the fact that the former precedes the latter, and the latter is meaningless without the former, you wind up with absurd positions like "the girl is as much my property to dispose of as the lint in my pocket when she is on my property." Life is superior to property, property is just a claim that can only be made, and reciprocated, by living beings.
Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: NHArticleTen on April 19, 2009, 03:24:13 PM
You don't bother reading much either, do you Rob?

Anyway, when you equate life and property, despite the fact that the former precedes the latter, and the latter is meaningless without the former, you wind up with absurd positions like "the girl is as much my property to dispose of as the lint in my pocket when she is on my property." Life is superior to property, property is just a claim that can only be made, and reciprocated, by living beings.

which came first, the chicken or the egg...
which came first, the chicken feed or the chicken...
which came first, the harvested grain or the chicken feed...
which came first, the unharvested grain or the harvested grain...
which came first, the full-grown mature grain or the unharvested grain...
which came first, the planted unsprouted seeds or the full-grown mature grain...
which came first, the plowed, tilled, and furrowed ground or the planted unsprouted seeds...
which came first, the wide open prairie with the stream running through it or the plowed, tilled, and furrowed ground...
which came first, the forest fire that burnt everything down to the ground or the wide open prairie with the stream running through it...
which came first, the forest and stream full of trees and animals and birds and bugs and fish or the forest fire that burnt everything down to the ground...

to wit...
that little girl scout...out in the forest...by the stream...strikes that match...and lights that cigarette...that she stole from her friend's dad...and the lit match falls to the ground...


and the fire begins...

enjoy!

Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: NHArticleTen on April 19, 2009, 03:28:05 PM

who's up for eggs for breakfast, chicken for lunch, girl scout for dinner, and mint thins for desert?

eggs, chicken, girl scout roasted in forest fire, mint thins left in wagon on road leading to forest...

it's all good...

Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: Dylboz on April 19, 2009, 03:28:34 PM
So we don't get too far off topic.  Here are the relevant quotes.

Quote from: Dylboz
What isn't fine is treating 40 acres of open land the same as the inside of your vagina, Rob. It's absurd.
 

Quote from: Mike the objective objectivist who can surely objectively explain the objective reason that these two objects should follow different rules of ownership
For one thing, your land is nothing like your pocket.


I would have thought it so obvious it was self-evident. When a thug wants your Rolex, or what's in the pocket of the jeans that are on your body, that entails a threat to your person, potentially ending your life and future ability to own Rolexes or yell "Hey kid! Get of my damn lawn!" On the other hand, if you don't see me walk across your back 40, you may never know there was a "violation." There was no harm done, no threat to your body, no damage to your person. Roughing you up for your watch or forcibly trying to stick an uninvited dick up your ass are physical violations of your bodily integrity and really potential threats to your life, and you have every reason to resist with deadly force. Cutting through the corner of your unfenced yard, not so much. See the difference now?
Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: Dylboz on April 19, 2009, 03:31:11 PM

who's up for eggs for breakfast, chicken for lunch, girl scout for dinner, and mint thins for desert?

eggs, chicken, girl scout roasted in forest fire, mint thins left in wagon on road leading to forest...

it's all good...



You are the problem, not the solution.
Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: Ecolitan on April 19, 2009, 03:33:53 PM
Cutting through the corner of your unfenced yard, not so much. See the difference now?

Yes, I always did.

Your argument should never have been that there is a difference between the types of property but that there were no damages, nothing to defend.  It DOES beg the question...  Can I put my hand in your pocket and play around in there for awhile so long as I leave everything the way I found it?
Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: NHArticleTen on April 19, 2009, 03:35:15 PM

who's up for eggs for breakfast, chicken for lunch, girl scout for dinner, and mint thins for desert?

eggs, chicken, girl scout roasted in forest fire, mint thins left in wagon on road leading to forest...

it's all good...



You are the problem, not the solution.

I have the solution...if you become a problem...

go figure...

Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: Dylboz on April 19, 2009, 03:39:31 PM
You are a violent thug who presumes to own and dispose of as he sees fit anybody within the geographic boundaries he claims an absolute dominion over. You're just a statist, Rob. A Royalist, and a medieval one at that.
Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: ziggy_encaoua on April 19, 2009, 03:42:25 PM
Few years back there was a case here involving a farmer shooting a burgular in the back (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_(farmer)) a court judged his actions as disproportionate & convicted him.
Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: Richard Garner on April 19, 2009, 03:46:09 PM
You are a violent thug who presumes to own and dispose of as he sees fit anybody within the geographic boundaries he claims an absolute dominion over. You're just a statist, Rob. A Royalist, and a medieval one at that.

A person has a right to do what is necessary to ensure the protection of their rights. Shooting a little girl for picking flowers is not necessary, and therefore not something anybody has a right to do. There are perfectly simple alternatives. Hell, pick the girl up and dump her off the land!
Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: Dylboz on April 19, 2009, 03:48:13 PM
Few years back there was a case here involving a farmer shooting a burgular in the back (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_(farmer)) a court judged his actions as disproportionate & convicted him.

And I totally disagreed, the man's a hero. But the burglar was in the man's house, threatening his person. He was not reacting disproportionately to a little lost girl with a fistful of daisies.
Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: ziggy_encaoua on April 19, 2009, 04:24:02 PM
Quote
A person has a right to do what is necessary to ensure the protection of their rights.

I totally agree however (http://forum.liberalyouth.org/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=12234&hilit=+tony+martin)
Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: NHArticleTen on April 19, 2009, 04:28:44 PM
You are a violent thug who presumes to own and dispose of as he sees fit anybody within the geographic boundaries he claims an absolute dominion over. You're just a statist, Rob. A Royalist, and a medieval one at that.

what part of real property don't you understand?

the fence?
the moat?
the tigers?
the alligators?
the landmines?
the castle?
the vault?

all of these pieces of property will be retained via lethal defensive forces if so chosen...

obviously at the discretion of the tigers and alligators and land-mines and sharp-shooters in the parapets...


so...in the final analysis you have shown that you actually do not respect other people's personal dictates with respect to issues regarding their property...irrespective of the actual property itself...

while it should be noted that each and every person who does actually respect the exclusivity of other people's property and their personal disposition of said same...those people will get along just fine...

others...not so much...

Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: Richard Garner on April 19, 2009, 04:33:03 PM
Few years back there was a case here involving a farmer shooting a burgular in the back (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_(farmer)) a court judged his actions as disproportionate & convicted him.

And I totally disagreed, the man's a hero. But the burglar was in the man's house, threatening his person. He was not reacting disproportionately to a little lost girl with a fistful of daisies.

Exactly. The question of what is or is not a person's property is irrelevent. The issue here is about what is a proportionate response to the violation of property rights in this case. Shooting the kid is not proportionate.
Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: NHArticleTen on April 19, 2009, 04:41:17 PM
Few years back there was a case here involving a farmer shooting a burgular in the back (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_(farmer)) a court judged his actions as disproportionate & convicted him.

And I totally disagreed, the man's a hero. But the burglar was in the man's house, threatening his person. He was not reacting disproportionately to a little lost girl with a fistful of daisies.

Exactly. The question of what is or is not a person's property is irrelevent. The issue here is about what is a proportionate response to the violation of property rights in this case. Shooting the kid is not proportionate.

but getting eaten by an alligator or tiger IS appropriate?

and does it really...REALLY matter...should it matter...whether it's bullets, or mines, or alligators, or tigers that provide your 24/7/365 security...

and if there is a difference then perhaps we should all have zoos with lions and tigers and bears...oh my...

or, by the same token...get rid of all the zoos and lions and tigers and bears and things that go bump in the night...oh my...

enjoy!

Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: Luke Smith on April 19, 2009, 05:30:46 PM
You are a violent thug who presumes to own and dispose of as he sees fit anybody within the geographic boundaries he claims an absolute dominion over. You're just a statist, Rob. A Royalist, and a medieval one at that.

Well well well, what have we here? Rob, the most extreme anarchist ever, is a statist and a medieval royalist according to Dylboz, the second most extreme anarchist ever? Jeezus Christ, you people are so damn ornery and standoffish that you can't even decide amongst yourselves who's the "statist" and who's the "proper anarchist".
Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: Dylboz on April 19, 2009, 07:37:23 PM
You are a violent thug who presumes to own and dispose of as he sees fit anybody within the geographic boundaries he claims an absolute dominion over. You're just a statist, Rob. A Royalist, and a medieval one at that.

what part of real property don't you understand?

the fence?
the moat?
the tigers?
the alligators?
the landmines?
the castle?
the vault?

all of these pieces of property will be retained via lethal defensive forces if so chosen...

obviously at the discretion of the tigers and alligators and land-mines and sharp-shooters in the parapets...


so...in the final analysis you have shown that you actually do not respect other people's personal dictates with respect to issues regarding their property...irrespective of the actual property itself...

while it should be noted that each and every person who does actually respect the exclusivity of other people's property and their personal disposition of said same...those people will get along just fine...

others...not so much...




Strawman much? I have done no such thing, sir. You've failed over and over and over again to even address the question I bring up, and you've also asserted again and again that you choose to initiate violence without respect to context or anyone else's right to life, even when no threat to your person could possibly be construed to exist, and call it "defense" just because these people happen, for whatever reason, to be within the boundaries of your property.  Up to and including cannibalizing girl scouts. You are a nut ball, Rob.

Also, you either don't bother to read what I and others write, or you just don't understand it. I suspect that you can't be bothered to even try, because you think you have the lockdown on the way things are.
Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: ziggy_encaoua on April 20, 2009, 10:06:57 AM
Should a property owner be able to put landmines in their garden?
Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: NHArticleTen on April 20, 2009, 10:14:01 AM
Should a property owner be able to put landmines in their garden?

Should a property owner be able to call his property "Zoo" and fill it with lions and tigers and bears and alligators...

hmmm....

Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: ziggy_encaoua on April 20, 2009, 10:30:00 AM
It was a question asked me by a libertarian funny enough I said yes so long as there was a sign saying the land is mined
Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: NHArticleTen on April 20, 2009, 11:03:35 AM
If you live at the ocean-side and someone drowns in the ocean adjacent to your portion of "sand-meets-water" should you be held responsible?
If you live at the lake-side and someone drowns in the lake adjacent to your portion of "grass-meets-water" should you be held responsible?
If you live at the pond-side and someone drowns in the pond should you be held responsible?
If someone drowns in the puddle of rainwater in your backyard should you be held responsible?

Does the exact specific path of the water, preceding it's accumulation, really matter?

Does the exact specific position and orientation of the accumulated water molecules really matter?

Is it any "less" trespassing when the trespasser drowns in quicksand versus a puddle of rainwater?

Is it any "less" trespassing when the trespasser is eaten by a tiger versus an alligator?

Is it any "less" trespassing when an American-born-mercenary is repelled and destroyed by an Iraqi person commonly called Saddam Hussein?

And if it's ok for American-mercenaries-called-paid-killers-called-soldiers to murder Iraqi-persons-called-police in Iraq...

Then why isn't it ok for Iraqi-mercenaries-called-paid-killers-called-soldiers to murder American-persons-called-police in America...


no little girls or boys were shot or incinerated by American Mercenaries at Ruby Ridge...or Waco...or Hiroshima...or Nagasaki...


hmmm.....

Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: Dylboz on April 20, 2009, 11:17:53 AM
Non of the above is even relevant or makes much sense. No one here is attempting to defend the actions of the state's agents, Rob. Well, except you, in the form of Saddam Hussein. Why don't you try and answer the question I posed earlier in this thread. It's on page 4, I think. At least think about why someone might have on objection to your ethical equation of property in land with human life (just typing that makes me shudder, it's insanity). Real quick though, if someone drowns in a puddle in my back yard (or the body of water adjacent), well, shit, their bad. Puddles aren't designed and intended for killing, and I didn't put it there to kill him. The land mine you have in your back yard, on the other hand, if you didn't clearly warn that person or they weren't obviously attacking you when they blew up, yeah, you murdered them.
Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: NHArticleTen on April 20, 2009, 11:29:13 AM
Non of the above is even relevant or makes much sense. No one here is attempting to defend the actions of the state's agents, Rob. Well, except you, in the form of Saddam Hussein. Why don't you try and answer the question I posed earlier in this thread. It's on page 4, I think. At least think about why someone might have on objection to your ethical equation of property in land with human life (just typing that makes me shudder, it's insanity). Real quick though, if someone drowns in a puddle in my back yard (or the body of water adjacent), well, shit, their bad. Puddles aren't designed and intended for killing, and I didn't put it there to kill him. The land mine you have in your back yard, on the other hand, if you didn't clearly warn that person or they weren't obviously attacking you when they blew up, yeah, you murdered them.

so I bought this jungle property a while back...seems there might be some tigers out there somewhere...

so I bought this other property where some humans fought with some other humans...seems there might be some unexploded ordinance around...somewhere...hmmm....

Maybe even something like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_balloon

Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: Dylboz on April 20, 2009, 11:53:21 AM
So put up some signs. Due diligence done. You seem to want people to get blown up or eaten by tigers, though. You don't want to warn anyone, because you just think they should "know better." Like where the line on the map is, and whatnot, because you have absolute 'Royal Prerogative' on your land to blow them up or feed them to tigers, whether they're girl scouts or bad guys.
Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: NHArticleTen on April 20, 2009, 12:02:48 PM
So put up some signs. Due diligence done. You seem to want people to get blown up or eaten by tigers, though. You don't want to warn anyone, because you just think they should "know better." Like where the line on the map is, and whatnot, because you have absolute 'Royal Prerogative' on your land to blow them up or feed them to tigers, whether they're girl scouts or bad guys.

that's what "no trespassing" signs and fences are for...

that should cover all incidents of trespass...whether you meet the tiger, or land mine, or the mine shaft, or the flying sharpened pencils, or the rocks from the trebuchets...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trebuchet

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2e/Trebuchet.jpg)

Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: Harry Tuttle on April 20, 2009, 03:50:19 PM
Rob should win an award for his over-the-top caticature of a libertarian.

Perhaps there would be a certain number of sociopathic freaks like that in a free society, but they would be completely self-sustaining hermits. For surely when a child-murdering lunatic ventured out of his property to purchase a new handle for one of his gardening tools he would run afoul of some little-known rule of the surrounding landowner whose land he must cross. Someone who would so callously kill a harmless human for an innocent mistake that caused no harm or damage to his property deserves to be put down in much the same way as a rabid dog.
Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: NHArticleTen on April 20, 2009, 04:06:48 PM
Rob should win an award for his over-the-top caticature of a libertarian.

Perhaps there would be a certain number of sociopathic freaks like that in a free society, but they would be completely self-sustaining hermits. For surely when a child-murdering lunatic ventured out of his property to purchase a new handle for one of his gardening tools he would run afoul of some little-known rule of the surrounding landowner whose land he must cross. Someone who would so callously kill a harmless human for an innocent mistake that caused no harm or damage to his property deserves to be put down in much the same way as a rabid dog.

and yet, until you trespassed and were eaten by alligators...how would you ever KNOW the zoo-keeper felt that way...

hmmm....

Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: Dylboz on April 20, 2009, 04:23:48 PM
Rob should win an award for his over-the-top caticature of a libertarian.

Perhaps there would be a certain number of sociopathic freaks like that in a free society, but they would be completely self-sustaining hermits. For surely when a child-murdering lunatic ventured out of his property to purchase a new handle for one of his gardening tools he would run afoul of some little-known rule of the surrounding landowner whose land he must cross. Someone who would so callously kill a harmless human for an innocent mistake that caused no harm or damage to his property deserves to be put down in much the same way as a rabid dog.

Agreed.
Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: Ecolitan on April 20, 2009, 04:30:22 PM
I also agree.  Except for the part about Rob being a sociopathic freak.  I think he is not.  I doubt he would shoot the girl (especially in the shooting the girl scenario, come revolution time I believe Rob will spare at least the attractive female jackboots, he's got a weakness there, don't we all) he's just vocal about reserving the right to if he chooses.
Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: NHArticleTen on April 20, 2009, 04:35:56 PM
I also agree.  Except for the part about Rob being a sociopathic freak.  I think he is not.  I doubt he would shoot the girl (especially in the shooting the girl scenario, come revolution time I believe Rob will spare at least the attractive female jackboots, he's got a weakness there, don't we all) he's just vocal about reserving the right to if he chooses.

a reasoned position

amidst the hyperbole and devil's advocacy...

Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: Dylboz on April 20, 2009, 04:36:32 PM
I still assert that he does not have any such right to reserve.
Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: Harry Tuttle on April 20, 2009, 11:54:43 PM
I was really refering to this straw character NHA10 invented. Even though he dramatizes heavily for dramatic effect I do not think he would actually kill a harmless child.

Dylboz has this one right.Since the US government folks actually are convinced they actually legally own a certain share of your property then this "propertairian" view suggests that they have legitimate claim to your use of that property. You see, your deed - in their view - is for a certain "bundle of rights" rather than full title to all of the land and its use.
Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: FKnight on April 22, 2009, 07:02:12 PM
The fact that there are eight pages devoted to a debate on whether it's okay to shoot someone for walking on your grass demonstrates the abject stupidity of this entire argument and its participants.

Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith) on April 22, 2009, 07:09:47 PM
The fact that there are eight pages devoted to a debate on whether it's okay to shoot someone for walking on your grass demonstrates the abject stupidity of this entire argument and its participants.


+1
Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: Dylboz on April 22, 2009, 07:21:54 PM
The fact that there are eight pages devoted to a debate on whether it's okay to shoot someone for walking on your grass demonstrates the abject stupidity of this entire argument and its participants.




I think it just demonstrates the ridiculousness of taking that position in the affirmative. You're welcome to your opinion, but I hope the thread might lead to some change in the way these issues are handled on air by Ian and Mark. They have in the past adopted the Royalist position where people magically become disposable property for merely "walking on your grass," without doing any damage or posing any threat. If they ever do read this (an unfortunately unlikely prospect), I hope they take pause and reflect on this thread before voicing knee-jerk hyperpropertarian support for such extremely unethical and logically insupportable behavior.
Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: Dylboz on April 22, 2009, 08:15:32 PM
Having finally caught up to the 4/11 podcast, I am pleased that they rejected the "maximalist" approach and basically agreed with me. I'm entirely satisfied. They've come a long way from the podcast I remember a few years back where they weren't nearly as charitable to the trespassing child in question.
Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: NHArticleTen on April 23, 2009, 12:28:29 PM
Having finally caught up to the 4/11 podcast, I am pleased that they rejected the "maximalist" approach and basically agreed with me. I'm entirely satisfied. They've come a long way from the podcast I remember a few years back where they weren't nearly as charitable to the trespassing child in question.

still...you would do well to mind the whereabouts of your own chitlins...and goats...and such...

enjoy!

Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: NHArticleTen on April 23, 2009, 12:31:55 PM

seems the gooberment is ok with spreading depleted uranium all around the globe...

perhaps they can spread some around the geographical region more commonly known as north america...

Title: Re: Shooting a girl on your property
Post by: kalmia on April 26, 2009, 08:12:44 PM
[youtube=425,350]

<embed id="VideoPlayback" src="http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=3600608903523555921&hl=en&fs=true" style="width:400px;height:326px" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"> </embed>[/youtube]


Anarcho Pacifist Batman (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3600608903523555921)