--This post is necessitated by this and this. It expresses my feelings, not rights nor right and wrong. Just human feelings and emotions. I am probably wrong for how I feel, but it doesn't change how I feel.--
I have never been a fan of "proportionality", and have mentioned this many times over the years in this blog.
It is easy for critics to cry "proportionality" after the fact, when they weren't there for the violation and weren't the victim. It is also a wonderful hiding place for violators.
If someone shoots you and you shoot back, but after the dust has settled it turns out his bullet "only" grazed your arm while yours ventilated his cranium, that wasn't proportional. Shame on you for not aiming to graze. Right?
Or, he could shoot at you and if he has time before you shoot back, he could claim he didn't kill you so you had better make sure to only do proportional damage to his body.
Obviously, a kid stealing candy from a store isn't as bad as an adult stealing your car or backing a trailer up to your door and cleaning out your house. Yet, at heart, the acts are the same; it's just a matter of degree. The kid needs to understand the seriousness of what he did so he might decide to never do it again. If you pat him on the head and say "It's OK" you are not doing him any favors. Each situation will be different, including whether he actually understands that he stole the candy. But there needs to be some awareness instilled in the kid.
Because, yes, if someone is in the process of stealing your car I do think shooting him is perfectly proportional, whether anyone agrees or not. I don't want the child thief to grow up and become an adolescent or adult thief, because then I believe it would be a great service for someone to kill him. I would like to avoid that outcome.
To me, once someone has demonstrated a total lack of concern for your life (including taking your property, which you traded your life for) they have shown that you shouldn't concern yourself too much with their well-being. Your mileage may vary.
_______________
Reminder: I could sure use some help.
I agree that "proportionality" isn't a useful term in this context, but am troubled anyway by the suggestion that killing a car thief is just.
ReplyDeleteIsn't it worth keeping two situations quite separate: a krime in process, and a krime under court consideration later? (the "K" spelling indicates an action that causes deliberate, actual harm, not merely malum prohibitum.)
In the heat and panic of an unexpected conflict, everyone certainly has the right to defend his or her life by taking that of the aggressor, and should not be blamed if the latter's intention was less than homicidal, given that the former's belief was reasonable. So (in your illustration, Kent) someone shoots you in the arm, it's a very fair presumption that he has murder on his mind and you return fire as best you can, aiming to kill. I see no problem there.
Very different, though, would be a case where a thief is driving off with your car. He is stealing not all of your life but only part of it (some of the fruits of your labor) and is not menacing it all. Therefore, to kill him is literally overkill. He owes you the car, and compensation, but not his life.
A couple of other situations may be worth considering:
(a) A girl is raped at knife point. Under that threat, if she can take a gun from under the pillow and kill the guy, she is fully justified, for she reasonably expects him to kill her at some point. However if he completes the rape, zips up and walks away, she is NOT justified in taking the gun and shooting him in the back; for at that point there is no sign that her life is in danger. (Though I'd expect a jury to take her extreme emotional stress into account.)
(b) By far the biggest thief we all face is government. Suppose an IRS agent visits, armed with a tow truck and driver, to confiscate your car in part payment of alleged taxes. Do you shoot the agent? The driver? Both? Neither? Why?
I agree that shooting the car thief after the krime would be murder. I just disagree that shooting him to stop the theft would be. That's the very example of a krime "in process".
DeleteThe life-cost of stealing a car is going to vary depending on the victim. Losing the car would be devastating to my condition. Chances of getting it back-- or finding the thief and getting restitution from the him-- are not good. And there is no possible way I can afford another vehicle which would meet my needs. I would be done for. Maybe if a car weren't so essential, or I could easily afford to replace a stolen one, it would be different.
a) I agree with your assessment. If I were arbitrating the dispute in Libertopia (in the case of her shooting him as he walked away after the rape), I would pay her restitution on her behalf. I wouldn't expect her to be in control of her actions that soon after the rape, and would understand that in her mind it wasn't "over".
b) The IRS agent would be the prime target; as long as the tow truck driver changed his mind about stealing your car after the IRS agent had been neutralized, I see no reason to shoot him.
"Very different, though, would be a case where a thief is driving off with your car. He is stealing not all of your life but only part of it (some of the fruits of your labor) and is not menacing it all. Therefore, to kill him is literally overkill. He owes you the car, and compensation, but not his life."
DeleteKill him. Fuk proportion. He is violating you. Right to defense applies. Whatever you gotta do to correct the situation is whatever you gotta do. That could be anything from a remote kill switch on your car to a sniper rifle to whatever works.
"A couple of other situations may be worth considering:
(a) A girl is raped at knife point. Under that threat, if she can take a gun from under the pillow and kill the guy, she is fully justified, for she reasonably expects him to kill her at some point. However if he completes the rape, zips up and walks away, she is NOT justified in taking the gun and shooting him in the back; for at that point there is no sign that her life is in danger. (Though I'd expect a jury to take her extreme emotional stress into account.)"
Kill him. He's a proven threat.
"(b) By far the biggest thief we all face is government. Suppose an IRS agent visits, armed with a tow truck and driver, to confiscate your car in part payment of alleged taxes. Do you shoot the agent? The driver? Both? Neither? Why?"
Kill them all. Start with the agent and driver, then move on to their bosses and facilities. They are all co-conspirators violating you. Right to defense applies equally.
Kent, I appreciate the very high value, to you, of a car. What do you think of insurance? - a policy that pays you its value if it's stolen would not be very expensive, and it would enable you to avoid what I see as overkill.
DeleteAnon, can you think of any way of de-fanging the IRS without killing all 130,000 employees? (Assuming they'd stand still while you took aim.)
I think an insurance policy of that sort would then make shooting a car thief "overkill".
Deletedefending {life,liberty,property} from imminent threat is ok.
ReplyDeletedefending against proven threat, more so.
later isn't murder.
it's defense, unless you now consider the {life,liberty,property} was transferred to the theif. (?)
to the original owner- retaining his claim remains valid and timely.
the state has trained y'all to beg for your {life,liberty,property} back.
bullshit.
it still/always belongs to you.
the state makes it safer for criminals. that's why there's more and more of them.
Delete"the state makes it safer for criminals. that's why there's more and more of them."
DeleteAgreed. Direct consequences like death are a far more effective deterrent to crime.
"the state has trained y'all to beg for your {life,liberty,property} back."
I see that with a lot of people. Not so much with Kent though. I think Kent is just trying to be as ethical and peaceful as possible. That is his general M.O.
I say this only after having years of reading his blog and having conversations involving every possible twist of values and principles imaginable. I have tested him. He is very consistent, always prioritizes the ethical peaceful outcome as a primary goal or solution.
But I very much agree that a lot of people are trained, so used to living by government standards as a default that they aren't really considering the true value of life and rights.
I also think there are a lot of Libertarians who are governed by public opinion and acceptance of libertarian ideas, toning it down and rationalizing when the answer is to use deadly force.
People deciding on whether to live a life of krime ought to read these comments-- maybe it would convince them to make a better choice
ReplyDeleteI think I may be operating off a different, less stringent definition of "proportionality" than Kent. Which is OK. My fiancee and I don't agree on the meaning of literally hundreds of words, which makes for some interesting discussions, sometimes a bit heated.
ReplyDeleteLet's try this from a different angle: you don't have the right to needlessly escalate a situation beyond a reasonable degree of force necessary to protect your rights. And by "needlessly escalate", I mean something approximating this: "committing an initiation of force -- archating -- under the color of acting in self-defense".
This is what law enforcement officers do. They demand the right to rob someone of 5 cents for a cigarette he is selling to someone else. The seller refuses. The cop chokes them and kills them. And then everyone stands by and does not hold the person accountable who initiated force by needlessly escalating, going from a 5 cent robbery to murder in two escalations: demanding the money, then murdering the victim when they did not comply.
That cop is walking free and on the job, IIRC. He got away with murder by escalation.
That is what I mean by a duty to act proportionately -- doing the opposite of what that cop did.
"Law enforcement" is archation. No one can have a "right to rob". The cigarette seller has the right to act in self defense even before the cop starts choking him. The choking simply adds another act of archation to the previous one.
DeleteBut, at this point, hunting that murderer down and shooting him would be revenge-- unless you caught him committing another act of "law enforcement".
The car thief has no right to steal your car, just like the "tax" murderer had no right to steal or to murder. Defending yourself in either case isn't wrong. If people don't like that they can choose to not archate.
repeated proven ongoing archation against {life,liberty,property}.
ReplyDeleteending archation- is moral.
in a manner that ensures success- is wise.
not at a place and time of the thugs choosing. but at a time and place and manner that ensures successfully ending the threat.
immediate: at a place and time of the thugs choosing = probably lose
ReplyDeletelater: at a place and time of the govts choosing = dependence on govt and "the law"
later: at a place and time of my choosing = win. criteria: proven threat is removed.
defending {life,liberty,property} may involve killing to end the proven threat (not murder).
on the other hand- depending upon the state processes to end the threat, is transferring your duty to the state. "Please massah, help out feeble me, for only your all powerful costume can save me"
Depending on government is never a smart choice.
Delete