California Penal Code 12355

[Punk-Stasi 2.0]

On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 06:54:20 +0000 (UTC)
jim bell <jdb10987 at yahoo.com> wrote:

>  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". 

	I was mocking you. Because proportionality should be self-evident for people who think are 'masters of libertarianism' who 'fixed' anarchy...


>  How is "proportionality" determined?  

	using basic rationality. Again, under basic libertarian rules, in case of theft, justice demands restitution. So if, say, somebody steals $10, he has to return $10 and eventually damages. On the other hand, murdering a thief who stole $10 is insane. 



> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

	it seems to me that a 'master of libertarianism' like you who links wikimierda is self-parodying himself. If you don't know any serious liberal literature, I suggest you go to a library...or something. 



> 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


	do a search for "punishmente must fit the crime".


>  > 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. 

	....

	now you're changing the subject? The subject is your criminal and unhinged views on 'legal' theory. 

 

>   >  btw, one of the key foundations of liberalism is rights to LIFE, LIBERTY and property. Property comes in the third place.


>  Support your assertion that people aren't entitled to use whatever level of force is necessary to prevent the violation of property rights.  

	no sonny, you have to 'justify' murder. Which of course you cannot do. 

	you have to prove the insane claim that you are 'entitled' to do whatever you want to defend 'property'.


>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.  


	you cannot justify murder except in the case where killing somebody is the only option to avoid being killed.