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?
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).
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.QuoteThe 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.
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
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.
Very poor analogy. For one thing, your land is nothing like your pocket.
You can't own... your kids...
QuoteYou can't own... your kids...
You most certainly can. You own your kids until they assert their own self-ownership.
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?
QuoteYou can't own... your kids...
You most certainly can. You own your kids until they assert their own self-ownership.
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.
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.
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...
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.
I don't want a dirty bomb or bio weapon. I want tactical nukes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_nuclear_weapons).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...
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
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.
Stringing him up and taking his land as recompense is proportional to the crime.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
You are at max allowed to respond to the aggression with the SAME AMOUNT OR LESS aggression as it was done against you.
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.
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.
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??
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??
Stop acting like one of those Texans
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.QuoteStop acting like one of those Texans
FUCK YOU BIGOT! DON'T TELL ME WHAT TO OR NOT TO DO.
GOD BLESS MOTHERFUCKING TEXAS!
That was not an initiation of force.
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...
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.That was not an initiation of force.
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...
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?
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 you don't believe in deed restrictions?
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.
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.
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.
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.That was not an initiation of force.
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...
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)
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.
Since no one seems to get the problem with this stupid hyper-propertarianism
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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?
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!
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 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.
You can't shoot the girl because there is no necessity to do so to protect your pen, or your vagina.
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.
What isn't fine is treating 40 acres of open land the same as the inside of your vagina, Rob. It's absurd.
For one thing, your land is nothing like your pocket.
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.
So we don't get too far off topic. Here are the relevant quotes.Quote from: DylbozWhat 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 ownershipFor one thing, your land is nothing like your pocket.
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...
Cutting through the corner of your unfenced yard, not so much. See the difference now?
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.
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.
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.
A person has a right to do what is necessary to ensure the protection of their rights.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
Should a property owner be able to put landmines in their garden?
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.