The Glade 4.0

The foundation of rights are ingrained. Just like many things from our gut they are good for broad things but need to be examined mentally to apply to specifics.

Any and every morality starts with a moral premise - it is from that premise forward where logic is used to go from truth to truth. We are ingrained with rights as our premise and gifted with the ability to reason their application from there.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Effectively, as in an effective manner; in actuality or reality or fact.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Again, whose morality do you wish our laws to be married to?

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

An animal will also react negatively to force used against it, but you won't catch Elmo arguing for animal rights, or for treatment based on interests.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Finally read it last night. Not a fan of his style (I find the dense, "philosophical" style irksome generally), but his characterization of populism - which I understand he views as a "transcendental" or "universal" phenomenon characterized by the linkage of various floating/contingent demands into a reified expression of "the people" that is in conflict with the reified image of an external "enemy" that insidiously frustrates those demands and, thus, the ultimate triumph of "the people" - is certainly interesting. I'm not sure how you'll tie it to the moral imperative discussion though.

His writing style is atrocious. If he or someone else would rewrite it then I'd read it.

The notion that theft = slavery and that it's acceptable to kill people to prevent even small thefts comes from centuries-old common law and traditions that were created in a time when the majority of individuals were literally struggling to survive. In this situation, theft of even a small amount could mean the difference between life and death for someone, so extreme responses were appropriate. It is not applicable today. I find very few things more horrifying than someone living in a first-world country who is willing to kill someone for the theft of trivial amounts of property. Seriously, what the hell is wrong with your brain where you're experiencing so little stress or trauma from the act of killing someone that you'd rather kill someone than lose $50 worth of stuff?

I think there should be a small penalty for killing someone over minor theft on your property, but you have to realize it's not about the money. It's about fighting against the unauthorized invasion of personal space and belongings which is very scary and threatening. Also, if someone stole my phone for example, they would have access to all my personal data on it. That would freak me out more than killing someone.

This.

_________________

Your stance assumes that the person being robbed knows the full intent of the person robbing them. If I come up to you and say gimme $50, there is a threat implied if you don't comply with my request. That threat is usually one of force. Now its not about the dollar amount, its about the individual telling me to comply with the illegal action under penalty of harm. So yes, I'm going to resist up to the point that individual can no longer carry out that threat. If to reach that point I need to use force that causes their death, too bad so sad. I didn't start that boulder rolling down the hill.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

For the sake of avoiding confusion, it should be noted that "theft" and "robbery" aren't necessarily the same thing. Theft usually implies simply stealing something, whereas robbery means stealing it by the use or threat of force. So, if I steal your bike from the outside bike rack while you're at work, that's "theft" or "larceny"; if I steal it from you while you're present by threatening to hurt you if you don't hand it over (or by pushing you to the ground and grabbing it), that's "robbery". Both traditionally and currently, robbery is treated as a much more serious crime - and the level of force permitted to defend against it is much higher - precisely because it creates or implies a risk to life and limb, instead of just a loss of property. Indeed, the distinction is based on exactly what I was saying to Elm before - a crime against the person is generally considered a greater infringement than a crime against property.

Well yeah RD, I was assuming people knew the distinction. Besides since theft is usually without the victim present, I don't see how there would be a chance to have that threat level reached.

Maybe you could resolve this legally: a person walks in on a theft. At what point does that theft flip to robbery?

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

Fair point, but I understand Elm's philosophy of rights to begin with the assumption that rights are built into the fundamental nature of humans and our "ownership" of ourselves, from which assumption he reasons that personal rights and property rights are equivalent (ownership of self --> ownership of labor --> ownership of fruits of labor; A = B = C). My issue with that is (1) human nature doesn't seem to reflect that equivalence (i.e. people generally value self over property); and (2) there are a variety of obvious practical differences between forced labor and loss of property (e.g. present labor vs. past labor; the choice of the labor itself; a variation on the theft/robbery distinction above; etc.), so reason also seems to suggest a lack of equivalence. I get the chain of reasoning, but I think it ignores the obvious differences that come up along the way in order to reach the preferred, oversimplified, outcome of equivalence. Like I said earlier, I think the transfer from A to B to C is real but lossy, so that by the time you get to C, you end up with a diminished level of rights; the right to property is a shadow of the right to self, not a perfect copy.

The details depend on the jurisdiction, but at common law the basic distinction is that robbery involves theft (i) from the person or in the person's presence (ii) by the use or threat force. So if you walk in on the person in the process of stealing your property, and he just runs away with it, that's probably still simple theft because even though it's now in your presence, there's no use or threat of force. If he says or does anything threatening (doesn't have to be an explicit threat), however, or if he touches you in the process (doesn't have to cause actual harm to be "force"), that's probably going to flip it over to robbery.

Your making the assumption that all people must value all of their property the same.

This is in no way the case. People are free to value property any way they wish including to negatively value it (which is why people throw away things) and even to change their mind at any time they wish about their valuations of their own property.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Your property is arguably an extension of yourself. For example imagine a man with a prosthetic arm. Is it not part of him? Now if he removes it and holds it with his other hand, does that change? What if it is 5 feet away?

So I cannot decide that it is worth me cutting off my pinned arm so the rest of me can live because its all "part of me".

You're still mandating that a person cannot have different weighted values for their own property when doing just that is inseparable from the idea of owning property.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Think not centuries-old, but millenia-old, and it surely is applicable today.

I'd rather not go through the stress and trauma of using deadly force on someone, I'd also not want to go through the stress and trauma of fearing for my and my family's safety, the lack of a sense of security and the nightmares that would follow. I find very few things more horrifying than someone who wouldn't be willing to do almost anything to ensure the safety, security and sense of well-being for their family. Seriously, what the hell is wrong with your brain where you're experiencing so little stress or trauma from the act of willingly subjecting your loved ones to the feeling of ultimate helplessness that such an invasion represents?

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Chimpanzees kill each other over territorial expansion, which is a form of property, so it actually dates back millions of years.

Sorry, I'm not a chimpanzee.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

The ancestors of chimpanzees and humans were the same species roughly 4 to 5 million years ago.

I'm talking about theft, not robbery or any situation where someone's life or safety is in danger or potential danger. Of course you should have the ability to use lethal force in such situations.

However, it is absolutely ridiculous to allow lethal force in situations where no one's life or safety is in danger and no reasonable person would perceive a possible threat to life or safety. I've used this example before, but in Texas it is legal to use lethal force to prevent the theft or damage of property (yours, anyone elses, or even public property) worth $50 or more. If you come up on someone spraying graffiti in the park it is perfectly legal to shoot them. If you own a restaurant and someone runs out of the restaurant rather than pay, you can shoot them. You can shoot someone attempting to flee from your gas station without paying for gas. These are the kinds of situations where I would argue that allowing lethal force is utterly absurd. Remember the case where a homeowner got in trouble because he shot two individuals that were burglarizing his neighbor's home, despite the fact that he knew the neighbors were on vacation and thus noone's safety was at risk? Same thing.

When someone is breaking into your home or stealing your property, it is an extremely antisocial behavior which is statistically linked to violence as well, so your life is in danger in these situations.

I guess you just don't understand what level of psychological trauma can be inflicted even if "it's just theft", X.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

If someone steals from your gas station they could turn around at any moment and shoot you. There is a greater than 1% chance I imagine, so yes your life is in danger even in that situation.

Also, when a felony is being committed against a victim, you can't expect the victim to take the most logical course of action.