5 ms·

I think that you have the right to protect your rights at all costs. If your rights are being violated it's OK to reclaim it by returning the favor. If you don'

I think that you have the right to protect your rights at all costs. If your rights are being violated it's OK to reclaim it by returning the favor. If you don't believe it then there's a discussion to be had about if you even have any rights to begin with or if these are just privileges granted to you by the others.

ketzo 5y ago
But surely there are degrees to this? I mean, if someone tall sits in front of you at the movies, they are violating your right to full viewership of the movie. If you get cut off in traffic, your rights are being violated. Where is the line? Why is property theft deserving of the end of a human life?
- foxrider 5y ago
  I think you're confusing rights with something else here. I'm specifically talking about natural rights, and I don't know if you're trying to steer the dialog into "what is a right" or just have a wrong idea, but I am not interested in philosophy or deconstruction of well established concepts
  - uoaei 5y ago
    And who is it that gets to draw the boundary around "natural rights"? The point being that humans defining natural rights goes against the concept of "natural". The entire exercise is a catch-22. Funny how in each case where this comes up, natural rights always means something different. Almost as if the term is consistently used retroactively to justify extreme measures rather than to inform people of their rights per se.
    - Dracophoenix 5y ago
      A natural right is a right that you are born with. Rights aren't defined prescriptively in the way that you imply. They're enumerated and acknowledged. Not granted.
      - uoaei 5y ago
        Enumerated and acknowledged by whom? What happens when two people disagree about what is a natural right? You have not proposed a solution to this issue. Your reply also stinks of moral realism which is a huge can of worms unto itself.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- gretch 5y ago
  In the case of the article, we’re not just asking about blanket “property theft”. I don’t think any of the proponents are say shoot someone who’s stealing a loaf of bread. In many parts of the world, a car used to get to work. If you can’t get to work, then you can’t make money, and if you can’t make money then you can’t eat. Does everyone who gets their catalytic converter stolen have enough money to get it fixed? If not, then this crime might be tantamount to depriving someone of their whole car
  - fergbrain 5y ago
    This. It’s not just a random part of a car their stealing. It’s entirely possible that loosing the catalytic converter cascades into being jobless and homeless.
    - ec109685 5y ago
      You can drive without a catalytic converter (though you will fail smog test so it could eventually cascade to that).
      - genewitch 5y ago
        When the cat is removed your car almost certainly violates noise ordinance, so it's undrivable unless you know someone quick with exhaust pipes and clips or a welder. So, yeah, you can drive a car without a cat, but not without a muffler (generally). Fix it tickets still incur a monetary cost.
      - Eelongate 5y ago
        You can't drive a car safely without a catalytic converter (unless the thief has been kind enough to patch up their damage with a straight piece of pipe, which never happens.) With a damaged exhaust system under the car, the driver is at substantial risk of carbon monoxide poisoning. And with a driver so intoxicated, everybody else on or near the road is at risk as well.
      - SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
        > You can drive without a catalytic converter This is incorrect for modern diesels that have a DPF system and inject DEF fluid. The cats are required hardware. You may be allowed 50-250 miles without them then the vehicle will not operate. It is well within possibility that someone stealing your cat between two places in Texas could be a big problem for you.
- esyir 5y ago
  We draw the line ourselves. This line will be the aggregate maximum punitive multiple that you'd append to a theft. Property theft to many, even implicitly, is very much the equivalent of the theft of some quantity of their life. People work and struggle, expending some quantity of their life to acquire property. To forcibly deprive them of their property is the removal of some portion of their life. The other way to view this is that in an ideal world, this is done by the state. The state alone possesses the means for other punishment. The individual cannot detain, nor can they fine or garnish wages. The sole means of action available to the individual is force. Thus, if the state is derelict in it's duty, the citizen has only the application of force at his disposal. When you're applying force, you'd better be willing to go to lethal, since being unwilling to do so drastically increases the risk to yourself if the counterparty doesn't play by the same rules.
  - Nursie 5y ago
    > To forcibly deprive them of their property is the removal of some portion of their life. This portion can be made whole again by replacing the property, either through insurance, through restorative judgements against the perpetrator, or various other means. Taking a life is final.
    - esyir 5y ago
      Replacing property is still depriving others, just in aggregate, rather than on an individual level. Are e so divorced from the concept of how property is obtained that we think we can magic it out of an infinite pool?
      - Nursie 5y ago
        > Replacing property is still depriving others, just in aggregate Not if the original property is retrieved or the thief is made to pay. I'm not sure in the context of this discussion, the worth of a human life, that your plea to consider where stuff comes from is that important.
        5y ago

ketzo 5y ago

But surely there are degrees to this? I mean, if someone tall sits in front of you at the movies, they are violating your right to full viewership of the movie. If you get cut off in traffic, your rights are being violated. Where is the line? Why is property theft deserving of the end of a human life?

foxrider 5y ago
I think you're confusing rights with something else here. I'm specifically talking about natural rights, and I don't know if you're trying to steer the dialog into "what is a right" or just have a wrong idea, but I am not interested in philosophy or deconstruction of well established concepts
- uoaei 5y ago
  And who is it that gets to draw the boundary around "natural rights"? The point being that humans defining natural rights goes against the concept of "natural". The entire exercise is a catch-22. Funny how in each case where this comes up, natural rights always means something different. Almost as if the term is consistently used retroactively to justify extreme measures rather than to inform people of their rights per se.
  - Dracophoenix 5y ago
    A natural right is a right that you are born with. Rights aren't defined prescriptively in the way that you imply. They're enumerated and acknowledged. Not granted.
    - uoaei 5y ago
      Enumerated and acknowledged by whom? What happens when two people disagree about what is a natural right? You have not proposed a solution to this issue. Your reply also stinks of moral realism which is a huge can of worms unto itself.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
gretch 5y ago
In the case of the article, we’re not just asking about blanket “property theft”. I don’t think any of the proponents are say shoot someone who’s stealing a loaf of bread. In many parts of the world, a car used to get to work. If you can’t get to work, then you can’t make money, and if you can’t make money then you can’t eat. Does everyone who gets their catalytic converter stolen have enough money to get it fixed? If not, then this crime might be tantamount to depriving someone of their whole car
- fergbrain 5y ago
  This. It’s not just a random part of a car their stealing. It’s entirely possible that loosing the catalytic converter cascades into being jobless and homeless.
  - ec109685 5y ago
    You can drive without a catalytic converter (though you will fail smog test so it could eventually cascade to that).
    - genewitch 5y ago
      When the cat is removed your car almost certainly violates noise ordinance, so it's undrivable unless you know someone quick with exhaust pipes and clips or a welder. So, yeah, you can drive a car without a cat, but not without a muffler (generally). Fix it tickets still incur a monetary cost.
    - Eelongate 5y ago
      You can't drive a car safely without a catalytic converter (unless the thief has been kind enough to patch up their damage with a straight piece of pipe, which never happens.) With a damaged exhaust system under the car, the driver is at substantial risk of carbon monoxide poisoning. And with a driver so intoxicated, everybody else on or near the road is at risk as well.
    - SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
      > You can drive without a catalytic converter This is incorrect for modern diesels that have a DPF system and inject DEF fluid. The cats are required hardware. You may be allowed 50-250 miles without them then the vehicle will not operate. It is well within possibility that someone stealing your cat between two places in Texas could be a big problem for you.
esyir 5y ago
We draw the line ourselves. This line will be the aggregate maximum punitive multiple that you'd append to a theft. Property theft to many, even implicitly, is very much the equivalent of the theft of some quantity of their life. People work and struggle, expending some quantity of their life to acquire property. To forcibly deprive them of their property is the removal of some portion of their life. The other way to view this is that in an ideal world, this is done by the state. The state alone possesses the means for other punishment. The individual cannot detain, nor can they fine or garnish wages. The sole means of action available to the individual is force. Thus, if the state is derelict in it's duty, the citizen has only the application of force at his disposal. When you're applying force, you'd better be willing to go to lethal, since being unwilling to do so drastically increases the risk to yourself if the counterparty doesn't play by the same rules.
- Nursie 5y ago
  > To forcibly deprive them of their property is the removal of some portion of their life. This portion can be made whole again by replacing the property, either through insurance, through restorative judgements against the perpetrator, or various other means. Taking a life is final.
  - esyir 5y ago
    Replacing property is still depriving others, just in aggregate, rather than on an individual level. Are e so divorced from the concept of how property is obtained that we think we can magic it out of an infinite pool?
    - Nursie 5y ago
      > Replacing property is still depriving others, just in aggregate Not if the original property is retrieved or the thief is made to pay. I'm not sure in the context of this discussion, the worth of a human life, that your plea to consider where stuff comes from is that important.
      - 5y ago