California Penal Code 12355

[jim bell]

 On Tuesday, December 3, 2019, 10:03:34 PM PST, Punk-Stasi 2.0 <punks at tfwno.gf> wrote:
 
 On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 05:39:39 +0000 (UTC)
jim bell <jdb10987 at yahoo.com> wrote:


>> Secondly, I don't value someone's life AT ALL if he's trying to kill, rob, or otherwise harm me or anybody I care about. 


 >   more clear proof of your lack of basic knowledge of 'libertarian', or liberal  principles. It should be self-evident that self-defense must be proportional.

I'm very suspicious of things that people claim to be "self-evident".   How is "proportionality" determined?  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle     Suppose a person tries to car-jack my car?   Carjacking has been known to result in chases, including fatal accidents, in others.  Am I obliged to let the carjacker go, to take the car?   Wouldn't that make me partly responsible if an 'accident' (or adeliberate use of the car to murder) occurs?
Can you find, anywhere on the Internet, well-formed discussions supporting your claim that " It should be self-evident that self-defense must be proportional", INCLUDING formulas which explain what actions are indeed "proportional"? 


 > then again, you think that executing car thieves is OK...
Would you let them steal cars and keep them, as an alternative?I suggest that Statists want to prohibit people from using self-defense, in order to make them more dependant on government.  


>> Robbery can turn into murder without warning,.  Since I believe in the right to self-defense and to the defense of others,  merely calling for "values life" clearly obfuscates the issues.


  >  btw, one of the key foundations of liberalism is rights to LIFE, LIBERTY and property. Property comes in the third place.
You are merely using a list, suggesting that is a relative statement of value. Can you support the idea that this was originally intended?   I disagree. In times of scarcity, taking property may involve taking their life, either immediately or eventually.    I have the right to my property, and if somebody wishes to deny that, they have quite literally aggressed, within the meaning of the NAP.  Support your assertion that people aren't entitled to use whatever level of force is necessary to prevent the violation of property rights.  That MIGHT NOT involve death of the robber, but nevertheless it might.  You cannot craft a consistent rule which can tell a person what he is allowed to do to protect his property.  
           Jim Bell

  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 4468 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20191204/14ad099f/attachment.txt>