Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[admin]

If someone shot at you and you had a gun, would you shoot back? And would that shot be in self defense?

If so then why, if he is being shot at, why should his shots not be in self defense?

I think the context matters.  If someone is shooting at you because you are stealing his property, maybe your first line of defense should be to put down the stolen property instead of shooting back.  Like I said, if the person is justified in shooting at you and you kill him, you are guilty of murder, IMO.

Charles

[5pectre]

I think the context matters.  If someone is shooting at you because you are stealing his property, maybe your first line of defense should be to put down the stolen property instead of shooting back.  Like I said, if the person is justified in shooting at you and you kill him, you are guilty of murder, IMO.

If you killed me would you also be guilty of murder?

I would say yes if he had shot at you, but no if he hadn't shot at you.

[maestro]

The US Constitution is pretty good, but it has some built-in weak spots such as allowing taxation and the regulating of the economy. Those powers, perhaps more than anything else, have led to the corruption we see today.

I think if you examine the pre-ammendment constitution, you'll find that it has neither the right to tax (only to excise and tariff international trade) nor to regulate economy (except as an arbitrator between states).  Almost all of the ammendments have been destructive to the original document.  Even the Bill of Rights is implied within the Constitution.  In fact, having the 2nd ammendment written down is part of what makes it vulnerable.  

[maestro]

You are not being taxed to pay for the criminal investigation _for_ others.  You are paying to remove a direct threat to _your_ life and property.  It just _happens_ that he struck the someone else before you.  

On this basis, you could justify public funding of healthcare expenses, right?  You don't want a bunch of diseased people infecting you later.  I think this is a total "slippery slope".  If you allow the state to tax me for things that are "in my best interest", there is no end to it.

This could be used as a basis for public funding of _quarantine_ but not of healthcare.  investigating criminal activity removes threats to your property and life.  The only reason someone has to press charges is to avoid the investigation and prosecution of victimless crimes.

After all, it does the dead man no good for the criminal to be hunted down.  It helps only those who still live near the criminal.  If there is _no_ police investigation then the physically weak and quaky of hand have _no_ defense.  While it should be every person's right to defend themselves, we should not remove the defense of those who are not capable of defending themselves.  If we do so, then we have removed the rule of law and and will be ruled by the man with the biggest fist or the quickest draw.

You are flopping back and forth.  Do you want to tax me because it's in my best interest, or because you feel sorry for the poor person who got shot?  As you say, it does the poor dead person no good to investigate and prosecute.  If you are supposedly doing it "for me", why can't I decide for myself?  If you are doing it because you feel bad for the poor, you need to explain why you have this arbitrary stopping point.  Why is being protected from criminals more important than being fed when you are starving, or clothed when you are freezing?

I'm not exactly following your last few sentences: "While it should be every person's right to defend themselves, we should not remove the defense of those who are not capable of defending themselves.  If we do so, then we have removed the rule of law and and will be ruled by the man with the biggest fist or the quickest draw."

There would still be rule of law, same as now.  I'm only suggesting that criminal investigations and prosecutions not be taxpayer funded.  I certainly am not advocating that everyone personally provide for their own defense by carrying an UZI everywhere they go.  You can hire private security and insurance services.  The "problem" you are raising concern about is that for some reason people might decide to go kill homeless people because they know they can't afford these services.  

Of course, in reality, I doubt the police currently spend any real time trying to solve murders involving homeless people.

I do not "feel sorry for the poor."  I am suggesting that not everyone has a steady arm and or a heavy fist to defend themselves with.  Public investigation of crime helps defend them by removing criminals before they strike again, and also helps make sure that you don't need to use that UZI, since after all, you might lose the gunfight.

If we are to base our government upon the sanctity of property and person, then we must be willing to defend such.  If we do not, then we are not looking to create a government but to remove all government and live in anarchy, where a group of strong and well-armed bandits might become our next Warlord.

[admin]

If you killed me would you also be guilty of murder?

I would say yes if he had shot at you, but no if he hadn't shot at you.

If you kill the guy stealing your laptop, then I'd agree that it is murder.  If you just shoot him in the leg or something, I'd say that it's justified and he has no right to shoot back at you.

Charles

[admin]

If we are to base our government upon the sanctity of property and person, then we must be willing to defend such.  

How can you use defense of sanctity and property as a justification for coercive taxation?

Charles

[catsRus]

Why does taxation have to be coersive? Perhaps it can be cooperative?

[maestro]

I am arguing that the police investigations and the justice system must exist.  If it can exist without taxation, great.  Otherwise, localities should tax as necessary to provide for police protection to their localities.  

Local taxes are not an unreasonable thing.  Local government is much easier to control.  Not only that, but it is relatively easy to move if your local government gets too bad.

If you think you can operate a state without police investigation and a justice system, then explain the method and I'll sign on.  However that kind of decision should be up to the local governments.

[admin]

I am arguing that the police investigations and the justice system must exist.  If it can exist without taxation, great.  Otherwise, localities should tax as necessary to provide for police protection to their localities.  

Local taxes are not an unreasonable thing.  Local government is much easier to control.  Not only that, but it is relatively easy to move if your local government gets too bad.

If you think you can operate a state without police investigation and a justice system, then explain the method and I'll sign on.  However that kind of decision should be up to the local governments.

I hope I haven't given the impression that I have it all worked out.  

Here is roughly what I'm thinking:  (1) People pay for their own defense, or provide for it themselves.  This means that police don't roam the streets looking for people to bust.  It's also not much different than now as far as you or I are concerned, since the police will never intervene and prevent you from getting murdered. (2) If you want to press charges for a crime, you go to a state court (private courts could be used if the parties agree, but the state court is the only one with the power of true enforcement). (3) if you don't know who committed the crime, you pay for your own investigation. (4) the party you are charging is invited to attend the trial, but is not forced to, since they have not yet been convicted of a crime. (5) If the person is found guilty, they will be forced to pay reparations plus any police and court costs.  The state police will go "get" the person if they will not report voluntarily. (6) If a person is ever arrested prior to conviction by the police, or anyone else, this is treated as a criminal act if the person is found to be innocent.

A variation on this is one under which the police will investigate for anyone and their "overhead" for this service is paid for by convicted criminals.  This is okay, but it means that people convicted of crimes are essentially overcharged to pay for this overhead.  Still acceptable in my book.

Check out this post for a description from another fellow.  He has thought it through more than I have.  His description is closer to the second variation above.

Charles

[5pectre]

If you kill the guy stealing your laptop, then I'd agree that it is murder.  If you just shoot him in the leg or something, I'd say that it's justified and he has no right to shoot back at you.

So you would say that the guy stealing your laptop has no right to self defense?

If he shot you in the leg (didn't kill you) would he be guilty of theft and actual bodily harm, or just theft?

Would you have the right to compensation from him even though you opened the shooting?

If you shot at him and injured him in the leg, would you be guilty of actual bodily harm?

[maestro]

Charles, I shall think about the idea that you suggested.  Something seems intuitively wrong, but I try not to rely on intuition when it comes to political science and philosophy.