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
Your anguish pretty much proves that if you cannot defend yourself (and your interests), then you really don't have any "rights".
DeleteTHe unborn baby cannot hire a lawyer or use other ways to discourage the "mom" from killing it. Nothing is more innocent or more important for the continuance of the species (biological imperative and all that) than a baby. And yet the unborn ones, and in some states the newly "aborted", are killed in job-lots.
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.
It is my impression that any possibility of a "middle ground" was destroyed by liberal judges who nullify legislation via dubious application of theory.
DeleteAn example: "Except for when the health of the mother is at risk." is currently defined to include mental illness so if a Mental Health professional (+95% Progressives) determine the mother's mental health is "at risk", BOOM...dead baby.
Playing the chess board a couple of moves out. So the conservatives might very specifically define what "health" means in this context. The might use seemingly iron-clad, boiler-plate language lifted from the definition of Aggravated Assault, to wit "Significant risk to life or limb".
Then next move by the Progressive judges would be to either invalidate that definition "No, you have to use the Teddy Kennedy definition" or to conflate "mental health" with "depression/anxiety" with "suicide".
In a similar way, legislation allowing abortions in the case of rape or incest BUT requiring the mother MUST have filed a police report within 48 hours of the event documenting that a rape occurred or incest occurred (and prosecution had been initiated for the incest) would also be scuttled on some technicality.
Even IF the conservatives were willing to compromise, it would be twisted and warped by the Judicial branch to effectively be a total capitulation.
I ponder what happened to worshippers of Baal and Israel around the time of Isiaha chapter 3?
DeleteI suspect the same for America.
BTW Laws are NOT MORAL. Germans didn't break any of their laws killing undesirables in the camps.
After all they WROTE the laws.
God is not mocked.
Codify, write a law, WHEN does this entity possess basic human rights. Compromise, metrify, any point in time will do as a start. Then the fun begins. If the being is human on day x, then killing it IS murder. The day before X, it's fodder for any and all use, abuse, profit or pleasure. No human rights, no crime. The resulting cognitive dissonance should cause liberal heads to explode. The only intellectually honest, internally consistent position, humanity is created at conception. Oh, in the image of the living GOD, lest there be any confusion ...
DeleteClarity,
A little East of Paris
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
As I''ve aged I've mellowed somewhat. I've become resigned to not telling anyone what they do with their bodies as long as they do the same with mine. God is the final judge of right or wrong. But ...
DeleteI don't have the responsibility of paying for their right any more thanthey pay for mine. You want to terminate your pregnancy - fine. You pay for it. If anyone deserves free medical benefits, it is childhood cancer. It is hard enough as a parent dealing with a sick child. Forcing them to pay for that cost (Ithink) is excessive.
Free abortions - no. Free childhood cancer coverage - yes.
"That is your life you spent to gain the item.
Delete"Stealing that item is analogous to taking your life (or that portion of it) from you."
Precisely my thinking, B.
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).
ReplyDeleteI believe the law is, if you feel threatened, there is no duty to retreat in your own home. You can't kill if you can stop or arrest the offender but if you can't, you may defend yourself with deadly force if necessary.
ReplyDeleteSo make sure then that there is only your story being told.....
DeleteBe very careful, different jurisdictions have VERY different requirements if they have the Castle doctrine at all. In the UK injuring an invader will send the homeowner to prison.
DeleteI don't live in those places.....
DeleteAlways good to own a shovel.
ReplyDeleteor a backhoe!!!
DeleteIn North Carolina, if someone enters your home (at night?) without permission, it is assumed they are there to do you harm, and the use of lethal force is justified. Of course, there was a warning example: A daughter told her boyfriend to come over and just come on in when he got there. The dad sees a stranger open the door and walk right in and shoots, not knowing daughter had given permission... The dad went to prison... The concealed carry instructor said to keep your doors locked, to prevent that kind of thing from happening.
ReplyDeleteJim_R
As for squatters, it depends. Are they really endangering your life? Perhaps if you had a very remote homestead located deep in the desert with the only well in miles.
ReplyDelete''If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him, but if the sun has risen on him, there shall be bloodguilt for him. He shall surely pay.'' (Exodus 22:2-3, ESV)
Communism doesn't believe in the concept of "private property"...except for the party elite. So any action that interferes with your exercise and right to own property is a good thing to them. That's why we have the insanity of "squatters rights". When the only "right" a squatter should be afforded is a burial.
ReplyDeleteExactly. The whole squatting phenomenon is an indirect attack on private property ownership.
DeleteSame as the shoplifting free for all.
Commies gonna commie…