Two Plus Two Publishing LLC Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-02-2009, 11:42 PM   #326
Zurvan
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Zurvan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: On the front porch, yelling at kids
Posts: 35,618
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strawn View Post
If they can't, why can't they?
Presumably because shooting somebody for trespassing is a completely unreasonable response. I'm forgetting the correct terms here, and I'm not an expert on this, but the key idea in Libertarian legal concepts is to be made whole for aggression made against you.

If somebody trespasses and nothing else, and you kill them, his family (or security firm in the absence of a family) can very likely make a case that you overreacted in your response.
Zurvan is offline  
Old 05-02-2009, 11:44 PM   #327
Rubeskies
Pooh-Bah
 
Rubeskies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Smooth Conversion
Posts: 5,704
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by vixticator View Post
Do you agree with me? It is my opinion that you can't kill people on any property without some good justification. I asked because I don't know if you agree--presumably you do right? Anyways, the question as to who can claim the offense of a homeless person getting murdered stands. I think you are with me here in that anyone can claim a wrong. The question remains on what basis?
Ah, I see.

Well this is an interesting issue for certain and I'm not sure exactly how it would turn out. But I do agree that the killer wouldn't get off without any punishment.

The two options I offered were the ability of the property owner where the killing was done to prosecute (although I admit that I'm not sure on what grounds it would be) based on common law legal precedent if, as we agree, society would not be OK with it.

The other option I saw was simply the social fallout from people being aware that you are a known killer (profession, premium and social).

There might be others as well that I can't think of off hand.
Rubeskies is offline  
Old 05-02-2009, 11:46 PM   #328
zan nen
temp-banned
 
zan nen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: hardcore state apologist
Posts: 4,377
Re: Inclined to Liberty

I am pretty sure you can't just kill your neighbor when he just passes out drunk on your lawn. What sort of sense does that make? A lot of concerns like that are so off the beaten path that I am not even going to respond to them in full, sorry. If the biggest concern right now is homeless who can't have a security firm on retainer not being able to seek justice, that is a good thing. I will quickly say that the homeless is not without recourse. Remember that property owners have reason to provide security even when they are not the one targeted by violence.
zan nen is offline  
Old 05-02-2009, 11:47 PM   #329
Rubeskies
Pooh-Bah
 
Rubeskies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Smooth Conversion
Posts: 5,704
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zurvan View Post
Presumably because shooting somebody for trespassing is a completely unreasonable response. I'm forgetting the correct terms here, and I'm not an expert on this, but the key idea in Libertarian legal concepts is to be made whole for aggression made against you.

If somebody trespasses and nothing else, and you kill them, his family (or security firm in the absence of a family) can very likely make a case that you overreacted in your response.
Correct. And whether or not you overreacted would be decided on by a private court.
Rubeskies is offline  
Old 05-02-2009, 11:49 PM   #330
Rubeskies
Pooh-Bah
 
Rubeskies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Smooth Conversion
Posts: 5,704
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by zan nen View Post
I am pretty sure you can't just kill your neighbor when he just passes out drunk on your lawn. What sort of sense does that make? A lot of concerns like that are so off the beaten path that I am not even going to respond to them in full, sorry. If the biggest concern right now is homeless who can't have a security firm on retainer not being able to seek justice, that is a good thing. I will quickly say that the homeless is not without recourse. Remember that property owners have reason to provide security even when they are not the one targeted by violence.
Yes! Thank you. This is what I meant Vix. I wasn't explaining it well.

Property owners have an incentive to offer safety to people on it.
Rubeskies is offline  
Old 05-02-2009, 11:55 PM   #331
Strawn
adept
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 709
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zurvan View Post
Presumably because shooting somebody for trespassing is a completely unreasonable response. I'm forgetting the correct terms here, and I'm not an expert on this, but the key idea in Libertarian legal concepts is to be made whole for aggression made against you.

If somebody trespasses and nothing else, and you kill them, his family (or security firm in the absence of a family) can very likely make a case that you overreacted in your response.
As "unreasonable" an "overreaction" as killing a trespasser may seem to this or that observer, the opinions (without contracts) of third parties are considered not binding on a property owner on his own land, right?
Strawn is offline  
Old 05-03-2009, 12:02 AM   #332
Rubeskies
Pooh-Bah
 
Rubeskies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Smooth Conversion
Posts: 5,704
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strawn View Post
As "unreasonable" an "overreaction" as killing a trespasser may seem to this or that observer, the opinions (without contracts) of third parties are considered not binding on a property owner on his own land, right?
Both parties' security firms would take the case to court and the agreed upon private court would decide taking into account all of the details and base their choice upon common law.
Rubeskies is offline  
Old 05-03-2009, 12:14 AM   #333
Strawn
adept
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 709
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rubeskies View Post
Both parties' security firms would take the case to court and the agreed upon private court would decide taking into account all of the details and base their choice upon common law.
You seem to be taking it for granted that the property owner had no choice but to contract protection from a firm that could force him to be subject to a law other than his own on his own land.

I'm sure you realize what that sounds like.
Strawn is offline  
Old 05-03-2009, 12:15 AM   #334
zan nen
temp-banned
 
zan nen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: hardcore state apologist
Posts: 4,377
Re: Inclined to Liberty

He isn't even worth responding to. He is suggesting that it is okay to invite someone over to dinner then shoot them in the head for whatever reason.
zan nen is offline  
Old 05-03-2009, 12:18 AM   #335
vixticator
clutch
 
vixticator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Watch the throne
Posts: 117,345
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Me or Strawn?
vixticator is offline  
Old 05-03-2009, 12:20 AM   #336
Rubeskies
Pooh-Bah
 
Rubeskies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Smooth Conversion
Posts: 5,704
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strawn View Post
You seem to be taking it for granted that the property owner had no choice but to contract protection from a firm that could force him to be subject to a law other than his own on his own land.

I'm sure you realize what that sounds like.
Meh, you can do whatever you want on your own land as long as you don't hurt anybody who doesn't want to be hurt and who isn't aggressing against you. What's the problem with this?
Rubeskies is offline  
Old 05-03-2009, 12:24 AM   #337
Strawn
adept
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 709
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rubeskies View Post
Meh, you can do whatever you want on your own land as long as you don't hurt anybody who doesn't want to be hurt and who isn't aggressing against you. What's the problem with this?
The problem is, on what authority do third parties without a contract with the land owner tell him what he can and cannot do on his own land?
Strawn is offline  
Old 05-03-2009, 12:29 AM   #338
zan nen
temp-banned
 
zan nen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: hardcore state apologist
Posts: 4,377
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strawn View Post
The problem is, on what authority do third parties without a contract with the land owner tell him what he can and cannot do on his own land?
You don't suddenly own people who walk on your land. Please think before you post.
zan nen is offline  
Old 05-03-2009, 12:33 AM   #339
Rubeskies
Pooh-Bah
 
Rubeskies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Smooth Conversion
Posts: 5,704
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strawn View Post
The problem is, on what authority do third parties without a contract with the land owner tell him what he can and cannot do on his own land?
You posit that a landowner has a right to do what he wants on his own land.
You also posit that a person has a right to defend himself when aggression is committed towards him.

In the case of a landowner committing aggression against somebody on his own property, we have a dispute.

The dispute will be taken to a private court and the court will take into account all the considerations and rule.

For example, if I invite somebody over to my house for dinner, and then shoot them in the face, I will lose my case in court.

If the person passes out drunk on my lawn and I roughly toss him off my property and he tries to sue, I'll mostly likely win my case.

Not really overly different than now.
Rubeskies is offline  
Old 05-03-2009, 12:36 AM   #340
vixticator
clutch
 
vixticator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Watch the throne
Posts: 117,345
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Basically you can only meet acts of aggression proportionate to social standards.
vixticator is offline  
Old 05-03-2009, 12:37 AM   #341
zan nen
temp-banned
 
zan nen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: hardcore state apologist
Posts: 4,377
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by 6 Painting Mental Images
ENVISION WHAT COMES TO mind when we hear, as stated that evening at my dinner party, that companies fire workers just to increase profits. The statement invites us to picture poor workers and their families living at the mercy of a greedy employer. And now, jobless, those workers will no longer be able to maintain even the meager standard of living to which they have become accustomed. This sad and exploitive “picture” is embellished by envisioning the employer as an ogre who has pushed his workers out onto the street just to increase profits, without regard for their suffering.

In a flash, the mind creates mental pictures produced by these types of phrases and, depending on our political or social stance,these images can erupt into a quick visceral reaction, with such responses as, “There ought to be a law!” or “How can one be so cruel?” We paint these pictures, using the philosophical, political, or religious brush of our leanings. Then, we convey the mental pictures to others with personal coloring. Every day we are inundated with stories, often distorted, by the media. We develop meticulous mental pictures from these stories, with very little understanding of the circumstances surrounding, or leading up to, them.

The baseless, albeit vivid, mental images harbored by supporters of Germany’s reign of terror during the 1930s and 1940s helped pave the way to “justify” the deaths of six million Jews and the suffering of millions more. History is replete with human gullibility; countless rulers have swayed their followers into believing that their economic problems have been caused by someone else’s race, ethnicity, religion, or economic status. Unfortunately, attempts to trigger these baseless mental images are not limited to only rulers and political aspirants.

Television reporters are very adept at delivering punchy sound and visual bites that can trigger unfounded mental images. As gas prices rose in the spring of 2006, TV networks went hunting for“victims” and aired 183 statements from upset or beleaguered gasoline buyers. ABC World News Tonight showcased a woman who claimed she had to pawn her wedding set to put gas in her husband’s truck. A week later, CBS Evening News suggested that higher pump prices meant the elderly were going to starve: “They’re used to living on fixed incomes, but now, skyrocketing gas prices are forcing seniors to make difficult choices. Some are cutting back on gasoline; others say they’re eating less.” The Nightly News showed a California man filling up his pick-up truck. “$3.41,” he groused. “They should start handing out knives to cut your arm and leg off.”

The reporters left no doubt about who the villains were. On ABC Good Morning America, Diane Sawyer reported: “Pain at the pump. Oil companies are getting ready to raise prices again. Is it time to turn the tables and tax their record profits?” Three days later, her colleague Charlie Gibson announced: “Pain at the pump. The big oil companies report billions in profits. Is our pain their gain?” The CBS Evening News opened with this indictment: “Gas price gouging. I’m Sharyl Attkisson with what Congress is—and is not—doing about it.”

Such antibusiness stories fill newspapers, talk shows, and television news programs. Many have even worked their way into movies. As we read and hear more of these distorted stories, we eventually begin to believe that there must be a vindictive villain behind everything we don’t like. We hear that a drug company has just discovered a cure for a horrible disease—but the next day we hear that the company charges far too much for a pill that costs very little to produce. Yes, that second pill rolling off the factory production line may cost pennies to produce, but that second pill would never have been manufactured unless the pharmaceutical company had spent millions of dollars to produce the first one. As for oil companies: if gouging us with higher gasoline prices is theirway of making record profits, then why stop at only $4 a gallon? Why not make a real killing and charge $10, or better yet, $100 per gallon?

Attacking profits as a means to lower prices is the very opposite of what political leaders and news commentators should do. Grand profits are the most effective means to lower prices, since they attract investors and entrepreneurs to a business that they would otherwise overlook. The resulting competition and innovative technology arising from this new interest underlie the process that brings us an endless stream of goods and services at the most attractive prices.

When questioning the prices of goods, we cannot ignore the fact that prices reflect relationships between the perceived values of two objects: money and goods. Price changes are simply changes in those relationships. When we say that a good is higher in price, we mean that it now takes more money to get it. But we could just as well say that the money is lower in “price,” since it now takes fewer such goods to get it. Thus, to determine if something is truly more expensive now than in the past, we must include in our considerations the value of money.

Derry Brownfield offers this clever illustration to describe the relationship between money and gasoline:

"I began a recent presentation before a large group of cattle producers (R-CALFUSA) by showing a paper dollar bill and a silver coin. The words 'one dollar' is inscribed on both the coin and the paper, yet the paper dollar will only pay for about one quart of gasoline at today’s prices, while the silver dollar will pay for well over five gallons. I explained to my audience that consumer prices are not high—the paper dollar has lost most of its value. It makes no difference how high the price of gasoline goes, a silver dollar will continue to buy gas for 20 cents a gallon, exactly the price gas was during the Great Depression. Based on 1940 prices, a paper dollar is worth about two pennies."

No one owes us gasoline, medicine, food, jobs, or anything else, so why should we criticize the person for the price he charges or the wage he offers for something that he was not obligated to provide us in the first place? It would make more sense to criticize the grocer for not selling us cheaper gasoline or medicine than it would to criticize those who are
offering to sell them at all. When we consider all the goods and services provided by those who have chosen to do so, we can only be thankful for their voluntary contributions to the betterment of our lives.

When reading and listening to the barrage of antibusiness news stories, we can easily be led, if we are not careful, to paint the mental image that anyone who makes money—as long as it’s the other guy—is never as wise, fair, moral, compassionate, or deserving as we are.
zan nen is offline  
Old 05-03-2009, 12:38 AM   #342
zan nen
temp-banned
 
zan nen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: hardcore state apologist
Posts: 4,377
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by vixticator View Post
Basically you can only meet acts of aggression proportionate to social standards.
Point out where initiating aggression is vague please in real world cases.
zan nen is offline  
Old 05-03-2009, 12:38 AM   #343
Rubeskies
Pooh-Bah
 
Rubeskies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Smooth Conversion
Posts: 5,704
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by vixticator View Post
Basically you can only meet acts of aggression proportionate to social standards.
Yup, and social standards will be pretty well spelled out in common law.
Rubeskies is offline  
Old 05-03-2009, 12:47 AM   #344
vixticator
clutch
 
vixticator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Watch the throne
Posts: 117,345
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by zan nen View Post
Point out where initiating aggression is vague please in real world cases.
What do you mean?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rubeskies View Post
Yup, and social standards will be pretty well spelled out in common law.
Right. I agree. No reason we wouldn't continue with the traditions of common law. Mostly because everyone understands it. I doubt many people would "sign up" for a different standard.
vixticator is offline  
Old 05-03-2009, 12:47 AM   #345
Strawn
adept
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 709
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rubeskies View Post
You posit that a landowner has a right to do what he wants on his own land.
You also posit that a person has a right to defend himself when aggression is committed towards him.

In the case of a landowner committing aggression against somebody on his own property, we have a dispute.

The dispute will be taken to a private court and the court will take into account all the considerations and rule.

For example, if I invite somebody over to my house for dinner, and then shoot them in the face, I will lose my case in court.

If the person passes out drunk on my lawn and I roughly toss him off my property and he tries to sue, I'll mostly likely win my case.

Not really overly different than now.
I'm still not getting it. Please answer succinctly with the precise principle(s) you are citing:

How does a private court gain jurisdiction over what occurs on a landowner's private property when he does not have a contract with them whereby he is subject to their decisions?
Strawn is offline  
Old 05-03-2009, 01:01 AM   #346
Rubeskies
Pooh-Bah
 
Rubeskies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Smooth Conversion
Posts: 5,704
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strawn View Post
I'm still not getting it. Please answer succinctly with the precise principle(s) you are citing:

How does a private court gain jurisdiction over what occurs on a landowner's private property when he does not have a contract with them whereby he is subject to their decisions?
The private courts only get to rule on cases that are brought to them from both sides of a dispute.

The jurisdiction comes from the fact that no security firm will protect somebody who violates common law principles such as inviting somebody over to dinner and then shooting them.

Succinctly:
No security firm could survive without bringing you to trial for a common law offense.
Rubeskies is offline  
Old 05-03-2009, 01:09 AM   #347
vixticator
clutch
 
vixticator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Watch the throne
Posts: 117,345
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Jurisdiction maybe the wrong way to think about it depending what you mean by it Strawn.
vixticator is offline  
Old 05-03-2009, 01:13 AM   #348
Rubeskies
Pooh-Bah
 
Rubeskies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Smooth Conversion
Posts: 5,704
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by vixticator View Post
Jurisdiction maybe the wrong way to think about it depending what you mean by it Strawn.
Yeah.

If you mean the right to decide any case within a geographic are, that is not what we're talking about.

The court's right to decide a case is solely derived from the fact that both sides of a dispute bring the case to them. The two parties will then have a contract whose outcome will be dependent upon the court's decision.
Rubeskies is offline  
Old 05-03-2009, 01:18 AM   #349
Strawn
adept
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 709
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rubeskies View Post
No security firm could survive without bringing you to trial for a common law offense.
That is like saying, "No fruit stand could survive without bringing you to trial for a common law offense." The landowner is paying the security firm to guard his person and property, not execute arrest warrants against him on behalf of some private court he never heard of. Such disservice to clients would indicate a ridiculous conflict of interest that the free market would soon resolve.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vixticator View Post
Jurisdiction maybe the wrong way to think about it depending what you mean by it Strawn.
By jurisdiction I mean the right and power to interpret and apply the law.
Strawn is offline  
Old 05-03-2009, 01:31 AM   #350
vixticator
clutch
 
vixticator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Watch the throne
Posts: 117,345
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strawn View Post
By jurisdiction I mean the right and power to interpret and apply the law.
Because society turns to these courts for adjudication on grievances. The jurisdiction is recognized by the community, otherwise it does not exist.
vixticator is offline  

 
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2008-2020, Two Plus Two Interactive