The Glade 4.0

Since robbery is defined as taking something by force, or threat of force, I'm going to have to throw that one out on principle.
So, you're saying (for our purposes) burglary without anyone but the thief present?

_________________
"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 there is any doubt at all whether someone's life or health is at risk, then deadly force is acceptable. I just think that straight out declaring that lethal force is acceptable in response to pure property crime is both ethically dubious and opens the door to predatory behavior. There are people twisted enough that would set out bait and then wait 100 yards away with a sniper rifle to kill anyone who goes for it.

It can also be considered predatory behavior to confine people in prison for defending their rights.

Is this one of those situations where the example is going to be refined and reworked until somone finally says "ok yeah thats not acceptable" then the other person will claim victory?

Cause I ain't going to be either one of those guys.

_________________
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

If someone takes what's mine, they've crossed a line peace loving people won't cross. I'm not inclined to spend much time trying to figure out just how far across that line they're willing to go.

I figure they've lost the right to influence where I aim once they've decided that what they want is more important than me keeping what I own.

That said, I've never seen anyone take what's mine, so my response is untested.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

The problem with this is that it's a stolen concept fallacy. Proportionality is all fine with you when there's a risk of bodily harm, but as soon as it becomes property crime, no amount of harm no matter how devastating to a person's material situation, justifies deadly force.

I don't see why it is you think human life is automatically worth more than any amount of property. A person choosing to steal or damage property is choosing to place those actions at higher value than his own life, for even if it were illegal to kill for those things he could never be certain someone wouldn't kill him anyhow. It seems to me this is really just about your own sensibilities being protected from harm.

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

When you abandon property, it is not stealing for someone else (either another citizen or the government) to take it. Any such predatory behavior would be murder; you cannot abandon property and then shoot someone for stealing it. If you intentionally create the appearance of abandoning it, you've abandoned it to any unknowing person acting in good faith.

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

When you are deprived of property, it increases the chance of premature death. For example, if someone steals your car, you will have to buy a new one and then might not afford proper medical treatment six months later. It's most pronounced if you're a hunter gatherer, because if someone steals your large catch for the day then you and your family might be completely screwed. I'm just saying there's many aspects to this issue.