#The Libertarian Platform
13 messages in this thread
>> The Librtarian platform does not require anyone to use excessive force in
self-defense.
Thank you, that clears it up… not at all, actually…
does or does not the libertarian platform *define* 'excessive force'?
if so, how does it? if not, does that mean, to libertarians, excessive force
doesn't exist?
(I think it's the 'does not require' that's throwing me.. how can one require
the use of excessive force? "sorry, you're going to jail, bub.. you didn't
smack that burglar too hard"… 🙂
Well, as I say, those who oppose me in this discussion seem to think that
'excessive force' is somehow mandated in the Libertarian philosophy and/or the
platform, on the basis that the platform condemns the punishment of actions
committed in self-defense.
Since the platform does NOT require that self-defense consists of excessive
force, the idea that it is the inevitable result is wrong, and I merely point
it out.
-larry
>> platform condemns the punishment of actions committed in self-defense.
ah, okay, a bit clearer. In the libertarian platform, does 'self-defense'
include 'defense of family and property' and 'defense of the just law'? (eg, I
see a guy robbing a liquor store, in the ensuing altercation, I accidently
shoot him through the head 47 times (with my revolver, of course :), does that
fit within 'self-defense'? 🙂
PS… I don't have a revolver.
Here's whatthe platform has to say about 'self-defense'.
"We oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of
self-defense."
and…
The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights — life,
liberty, and justly acquired property — against aggression, whether by
force or fraud. This right inheres in the individual, who — with his or her
consent — may be aided by any other individual or group."
and The right of defense extends to defense against aggressive acts of
government. We favor an immediate end to the doctrine of "Sovereign
Immunity" which ignores the primacy of the individual over the
abstraction of the State, and holds that the State, contrary to the
tradition of redress of grievances, may not be sued without its
permission or held accountable for its actions under civil law."
Hmm… formatting problems, but there ya go.
-larry
Ah, so I am protected from persecution then for blowing away some s.o.b. who's
trying to take my tv. good.. however…
>> "We oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of
self-defense."
from whence are said rights acquired?
All rights are inherent. Rights can only be removed or restricted or qualified,
or…
-larry
This turns out not to be the case. rights don't exist, except where the power
exists to create and enforce them.
>rights don't exist, except where the power exists to create and enforce
them.<
If we choose to be merely brownian particles blown by the winds of the
world, then we are. The result would be a world where life was
meaningless and cheap. Why not kill the one who irritates you? Since he
has no inherent rights, he is no more of a person than a rock on the
ground.
If we choose to believe that "all men are created equal, endowed by their
creator with certain inalienable rights…", the result is world where
human interactions are mediated by at least a trace of empathy for others.
The first view offers no hope of improvement. What is purely within
ourselves we are free to disregard.
The second view places the existence of rights beyond ourselves. Whether
you choose religion or natural law theory or something else, IF you accept
the seperate existence of rights, you sow the seeds of an ethical society.
Rights exist. They may be suppressed by force, or go unexercised, but
they cannot be destroyed or removed. But that's just an article of faith.
Kent
>> Why not kill the one who irritates you?
because the society of which you are a member considers such behaviour socially
unacceptable, and has the power to make you suffer for committing the act.
You make my point.
If the only restraint on human behavior is perceived consequences, if we
postulate no right and wrong, then we're no better than rats in a cage,
avoiding behavior which brings an electric shot.
I choose to believe we are more than behavioral mechanisms. But as I
said, it's an article of faith.
Kent
In fcat, ALL rights exist in the absence of government. In a completely
anarchic society, everyone has the right to do ANYTHING at all, as there is no
law that states otherwise.
In any given society, rights consist of those things thatr are not prohibited,
or are codified as being permitted, depending on the society.
-larry
>> everyone has the right to do ANYTHING at all
everyone has the power to do anything at all.
>> everyone has the right to do ANYTHING at all
> everyone has the power to do anything at all.
It is the same thing.
-larry