Jagsfan82 Posted May 28, 2014 Posted May 28, 2014 So I posted a rant on facebook about how violence is not surprising given the contradictions we send to our children about how the initiation of force is a rule we are supposed to follow in all situations, except for some cases like punishment and motivation. Spanking a child for hitting another child for example. I made the point that when we make exceptions to rules we allow for the interpretation of the spirit behind those exceptions and the invention of other exceptions. The most recent shooting was justified by the shooter as something the people deserved.I got a counter from my fellow libertarian (not sure if he is full anarchist or not..) that rules can be relevant and have exceptions and humans are capable of moral exceptions without compromising the spirit of the rule. Violence in teh defense of life or liberty is justified according to him.I then countered with violence not being equal to the initiation of force. I then said creating exceptions to the absolute rule that the initiation of force is wrong results in things like genocides, communism, and crusades that kill hundreds of millions of people.NOW HERE IS WHERE IT GETS A LITTLE TRICKY He then asked about property rights. He claimed that I have to include an exception to the initiation of force if I want to also claim the validity of property rights. The argument is that property rights don't exist if one cannot defend his property. An example he used was someone who decided to live in your house and shit on your floors.I countered with an argument that by him being there he was initiating force on you by disturbing how you would normally have lived on your own property. But even then we run into a problem. Lets say using only the minimum amount of force to remove them from the property was allowed. Lets say I am really weak and the person who wants to peacefully stand there is very strong. I can't do anything in my power to move him. I start to wack him with a stick telling him to leave. He stays. I get to the point where anything i do further is putting his life in danger. Is this okay? Am I allowed to shoot him and drag his dead body off my property?My argument is that this would be such a rare event that you can just take an insurance claim and move on with your life. But I continued to get countered with if I don't believe in defense of property rights, I don't believe in property rights.So the question is at what point is ignoring the property rights of others the initiation of force, assuming they do so peacefully? Is there really an exception to the initiation of force? How much force am I allowed to use to take back a snickers bar that was stolen from me, for example. How do we determine the right amount of force? I really do not want to have any exceptions to the initiation of force rule. It really leads to things like killing people for snickers bars or shooting people for walking across your land to get to the other side.Any explanations?
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted May 28, 2014 Posted May 28, 2014 The NAP is a principle so there are no exceptions, otherwise it would just be a rule of thumb. Who would care? If someone invades your home or steal your snickers bar then you use proportionate force. You can easily estimate what is appropriate for the theft of a chocolate bar or whatever. Where's the exception? Why is any of this a problem?
june Posted May 28, 2014 Posted May 28, 2014 I really do not want to have any exceptions to the initiation of force rule. It really leads to things like killing people for snickers bars or shooting people for walking across your land to get to the other side. Any explanations? hmm.. this is a bit of a muddled area: how is the "appropriate" amount of self-defense determined? like, if you stand on my property, you are breaching my property rights , so is it okay for me to shoot you? to punch you? what is morally allowed in this scenario, where and how is the line drawn (if there is one?)? i hope an answer can be provided for you. its a very good question.
Brentb Posted May 28, 2014 Posted May 28, 2014 1) It is universally preferable to protect property rights 2) It is universally preferable to inform or warn the perpetrator, if possible, prior to using force 3) If is universally preferable to use no more force than necessary to protect your property. I just posited those three statements, but they seem about right. As far as #3 goes. Shooting and killing someone would probably be using more force than necessary, since you could hire a security company to remove the person and keep them away.
june Posted May 28, 2014 Posted May 28, 2014 1) It is universally preferable to protect property rights 2) It is universally preferable to inform or warn the perpetrator, if possible, prior to using force 3) If is universally preferable to use no more force than necessary to protect your property. I just posited those three statements, but they seem about right. As far as #3 goes. Shooting and killing someone would probably be using more force than necessary, since you could hire a security company to remove the person and keep them away. well, what one "prefers" is subjective. what is important here is what is deemed morally permissible; if someone steps on my property without my consent, is it immoral for me to shoot them? if it is, why?
Jagsfan82 Posted May 28, 2014 Author Posted May 28, 2014 1) It is universally preferable to protect property rights 2) It is universally preferable to inform or warn the perpetrator, if possible, prior to using force 3) If is universally preferable to use no more force than necessary to protect your property. I just posited those three statements, but they seem about right. As far as #3 goes. Shooting and killing someone would probably be using more force than necessary, since you could hire a security company to remove the person and keep them away. The NAP is a principle so there are no exceptions, otherwise it would just be a rule of thumb. Who would care? If someone invades your home or steal your snickers bar then you use proportionate force. You can easily estimate what is appropriate for the theft of a chocolate bar or whatever. Where's the exception? Why is any of this a problem? This all goes back to having a certain level of interpretation for what the appropriate force is. If a stubborn person absolutely refuses to leave your house and you have no means to hire a security person what is the reasonable thing. Say this one person is now a group of 20 peaceful people, other than the fact they aren't respecting your property rights? Say the person who took your chocolate bar repeatedly came back to take the chocolate bar you repeatedly removed from him through "just enough force".How much of your resources are you obligated to commit to that. How much force are you allowed to use? -----For me the solution may be in informing the person who infringes upon your rights the consequences of their actions and why you have a right to those actions. He would then have a right to dispute your claims of property to which you would need to provide proof or hire an arbitrator of some kind. So for someone who insisted on staying inside of your home, you could explain that he is causing undue stress and strain on your family and making us use a certain amount of resources that could otherwise be used on other things that impact the wellbeing of not just me, but other people. If you refuse to respect my property I am going to have to use whatever force necessary to do so.If the person then chooses to ignore your request after it has been agreed upon by one or multiple third parties that he is in fact infringing upon your property rights, then he is voluntarily accepting the use of force on him, and any actions he takes that requires additional force will have been brought on by himself.I think we have to establish a couple things before we accept this viewpoint. One, the act of infringing upon the property rights of another person IS an act of force. Responding to that act with force would not be the same as initiating force. This is when we have entered into the gray area of morality, where we can't really tell people a universal rule to apply here. It has to be deduced from logic and universal thinking. It would be universally preferable for people to, if possible, warn the person before responding to them with the use of force. Applied universally, not doing so could justify people killing over petty theft and minor trespassing. When possible, it would be universally logical to require a third party assessment of the situation before any force could be used against that person that would require permanent damage to that persons property, most importantly of course their body. This is essentially what we call due process in our current legal system.
june Posted May 28, 2014 Posted May 28, 2014 It would be universally preferable for people to, if possible, warn the person before responding to them with the use of force. Applied universally, not doing so could justify people killing over petty theft and minor trespassing. When possible, it would be universally logical to require a third party assessment of the situation before any force could be used against that person that would require permanent damage to that persons property, most importantly of course their body. This is essentially what we call due process in our current legal system. words like "preferable" and "logical" are obfuscating the point, in my opinion. this is about morality, and what is morally permissible.so you say it is "universally preferable for people to, if possible, warn the person before responding to them with the use of force"... well put it this way, if i use force on someone who is breaching my property without issuing a warning (when possible), would i be acting immorally?
jpahmad Posted May 28, 2014 Posted May 28, 2014 This all goes back to having a certain level of interpretation for what the appropriate force is. Let me put your mind at ease. The NAP is a principle, not a law. Yes, the degree of aggression is open to interpretation, but what does it matter as long as reasonable people are interpreting it? In a free society, where everybody believes in the NAP, you will find mostly reasonable people, who have no financial incentive to make anyone into a villain. For example, if I were your neighbor and I witnessed you shooting someone for walking on your lawn, I would think you were an asshole and never associate with you again. Even though you were not violating the NAP. In fact, I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone who would want to associate or do business with you. You would effectively become ostracized for being an asshole, but not for violating the NAP. In fact, you can bet that you would be dropped by any DROs that provide you insurance. The punchline is that there would be a strong incentive for any individual to use only the amount of force that the majority of people in his/her community would find reasonable if they were in the same situation. It's a beautiful design!
Brentb Posted May 28, 2014 Posted May 28, 2014 Or just lock the doors, and change the locks, if necessary. We have developed a lot of simple means to avoid conflicts. I don't know how "universally logical" would be different from logical. Shooting someone for being on your property would not be commensurate in relation to his violation of your property. So shooting someone outright would not be moral. However, if you're pointing a gun at someone, then you can put the decision on them saying "you can leave or get shot, it's your choice". If they don't leave, then it was their choice to get shot. This is what governments do to force people - they rarely ever have to resort to shooting, but the gun is always there. Governments, however, initiate force and are therefore immoral. In your example, you're not initiating force. This person is initiating force, and you're reacting to his violation.
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted May 29, 2014 Posted May 29, 2014 This all goes back to having a certain level of interpretation for what the appropriate force is. If a stubborn person absolutely refuses to leave your house and you have no means to hire a security person what is the reasonable thing. Say this one person is now a group of 20 peaceful people, other than the fact they aren't respecting your property rights? Say the person who took your chocolate bar repeatedly came back to take the chocolate bar you repeatedly removed from him through "just enough force".How much of your resources are you obligated to commit to that. How much force are you allowed to use? ----- The specific details do not matter when talking about the principle. The degree of force should be proportionate to the violation. You interpret it as honestly as you can. The violator takes the risk. You are under no obligation to to come with some precise degree of force that is proportionate. There is no possible way to measure that. This question has been answered. You use a proportionate level of force to counter a violation.
Omegahero09 Posted May 29, 2014 Posted May 29, 2014 If your 'peaceful' trespasser doesn't leave your property if you tell him to, he is violating your property rights, and it's up to you to figure out how apply self-defense. It's just like Teabagger said, the violator risks the entire spectrum of self-defense from the individual/individuals he is violating, and from witnesses acting in the defense of the person violated. And actually the 'peaceful' trespasser isn't uncommon- there is a reason why celebrities hide away in seclusion. Technically paparazzi and journalists act peacefully, but how many times do you see celebrities act out against them? Tool's frontman Maynard is notorious for shooting paintballs at crazed fans who trespass on his property here in Arizona for crying out loud. So in short, it's not an exception, because once the person doesn't leave, they are violating your property rights. Property rights are an agreed negotiation between individuals. If he doesn't leave, he's not negotiating- that mother fucker is making a stand.
Recommended Posts