Where does "property" end and "human life" begin?
If I punch somebody in the stomach but claim I was punching his SHIRT, that is not going to fly. That shirt, while he was wearing it, was an extension of the person I punched.
If I am hiking in a remote area and another camper steals my Life-Straw (purifies water), the other camper did not steal a $13 gadget, he potentially stole my life...dehydration from diarrhea can kill you.
If I am occupying my house and another person enters without my permission and I tell him to leave...and he doesn't, then he already demonstrated ill-intent.
The pacifist would say "You cannot shoot him. It is only property. It can be replaced."
That is analogous to the "I punched the shirt" argument.
If you cannot personally defend something and must rely on the police to do it for you, then it is not really your property. That is because you are relying on the police actually showing up and are at the mercy of the department's policies and the policies of the District Attorney and the personal whims and politics of the Judges.
If you are not allowed to control the use of something...then it is not really your private property. Can it even be considered "private property"? A more accurate description might be that it is a status symbol that is rented from the government.
Laws
I concede that there is a place for laws. I don't think my upwind neighbor should be able to burn toxic chemicals on his property.
But I am receptive to the idea that shooting squatters is justifiable homicide if personally executed by the rightful owner(s) of the property....even if the squatters took possession when the owners were not in the building. If later investigation shows that the person who pulled the trigger was not the rightful owner, then it becomes Murder in the First Degree.
I'm gonna take that bait and make a run for deep water ...
ReplyDeleteWith all the rhetoric being flung about "reproductive freedom ves the right to life", one simple question goes unasked and unanswered. WHEN do we, as a society, confer (Acknowledge!) basic human rights on the product of conception being carried by a human female?
At Some point, this THING, becomes the bearer of fundamental human rights, at present, it seems that this status is rather arbitrarily determined by some confluence of geography and the attitude of the biological host.
Until such a time that we benight this thing with human status, it must be regarded , by default, as property? What could we, societally do with property that looked like people? Have to dig up a new word for that status..
Scratching my head on that one,
A little East of Paris
If nothing intervenes in the situation, the normal course of events after the sperm cell enters the egg cell is the birth of a human being. Unlawful killing of which is murder, punishable by death. Case closed.
DeleteThat's where I live ...
DeleteAlEoP
Property rights are the core of civilization.
ReplyDeleteEven the Bible is full of scriptures about land ownership and secondary scriptures of its use (going fallow and such).
Proverbs 23: 10
Saying 11
10 Do not move an ancient boundary stone
or encroach on the fields of the fatherless,
11 for their Defender is strong;
he will take up their case against you.
As I understand it (Google not acting right today) Communists hate "private property" and that I suspect is the goal of "Decimalizing" theft and squatters. Not pacifism.
While as a medical person I can understand abortion for rape, incest or tested for and found serious medical problems.
Murder of an unborn for Convenance (as in I don't want a baby NOW) is wrong. Availability if free birth control (let alone just don't have it ideas) in my area is universal.
Better adoption services to pass on a healthy baby to those seeking them seems a more Christian option.
Abortion as a "Reproductive RIGHT" Nationally as per Democrats platform seems way too close to sacrifice of babies to Baal per Isiaha Chapter 3.
The conundrum you highlight is one big reason I relocated my family from NY 9 years ago. It's not that the lack of castle-doctrine law was the cause, rather the symptom. Most people don't see it this way, but especially since having moved, it's a blindingly obvious fact:
ReplyDeleteThe State vs. Individuality.
It's the same argument pervading our national politics, though it takes many forms. At the crux of the issue, is do you want the state to deal with it, or stay out of it and you deal with it?
Home/car repairs, healthcare, finances, career, pick a topic, any topic. The division w/in our society can be extrapolated along the lines of people who want big-government to take care of them, and people who do not want big government to take care of them. That is the division in the minds of people, that manifests in things like democrat or republican party affiliation. But that's a false-mantle. Do you want to take care of and be responsible for yourself, or do you want to be part of a bigger machine and not be responsible for your own situation.
The crime situation you highlight is the perfect fractal. Do you want to confront the big scary threat yourself, or call someone from big gov to do it? If you're of the first type of person, you vote for gun rights and strong criminal laws (because they facilitate your paradigm - I need a gun if I'm to defend myself). If you're of the second type, you vote for gun control and are lax with crime (because you think that will make crime less likely).
In the end, your political stance comes down to whether you want to deal with things yourself, or have someone else deal with things. That is what the fighting today is about.
Your property required (in most cases) the use of your body and/or mind for a portion of your lifespan in order to gain the money or other value to purchase or trade for it.
ReplyDeleteThat is your life you spent to gain the item.
Stealing that item is analogous to taking your life (or that portion of it) from you.
That is the way I see it.
When asked if I believe that my property is worth a thief's life, I always answer:
"The thief thinks so"
FAFO
ERJ, I cannot think of a single major religious system or philosophical system that embraced the idea of taking the property of others as right or just. It only seems to be governments that endorse this sort of behavior in the name of "right" and "justice" and "common good" (and no, ancient or medieval governments were no better in this regard).
ReplyDelete