Is it ethical to shoot someone in defense of your property if

No. You might be able to get away with it legally though.

File: stirnerrrrrrr.jpg (5KB, 200x175px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 200x175px

>>2702731
>your property
You don't want to start this discussion...

File: 1491932920606.gif (386KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

386KB, 400x300px

>>2702731
Please tell me you follow a personal code of ethics.

>>2702731
In the animal kingdom, territory is serious business. Any transgressions result in a fight because the assumption is that they will take resources within and have proven themselves to be a threat. Unlike dogs that mark territory with piss, humans use land titles and defined boundary markers. By going through those boundaries, the person is a threat. But they still deserve a warning shot just in case they were a dumbass.

Tl;dr. Yes, its ethical

It depends. Usually a case that can be defined as "defending your property with force" actually involves someone breaking into your house when you're at home.

Which means that you're defending yourself anyway.

File: P3UpfdI.jpg (102KB, 856x712px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 856x712px

>>2702731

>>2702731
Depends on whether or not you'll throw him out of a plane first.

File: 1491279451364.jpg (39KB, 396x385px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 396x385px

>society makes you spend majority of your life working to obtain property
>not allowed to use lethal force to protect said property

>>2702806
He said he was gonna kill me, i feared for my life etc etc, get a family member to punch you in the face.

Not that hard desu.

>>2702810
That's not very convincing if you shot him in the back as he ran away.

How is it defence if someone isn't a threat?

>>2702781
Clearly OP is referring to cases not like that.

>>2702819
They're threatening your property.

>>2702825
by running away? as >>2702818 said?

>>2702828
If they're running away with your property yes.

>>2702731
>Is it ethical to shoot someone
yes

File: 1492799391172.png (12KB, 420x420px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 420x420px

>>2702825
yeah if someone if on your property eating the apples off your tree you have the moral right to blast them (assuming that they would know it is your property.

File: 1492308948326.png (46KB, 300x359px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 300x359px

>been saving up to buy a used vintage car
>carrying large amount of cash
>get mugged
>the right thing to do is let the thief escape with the fruit of my years of labor

File: b904b818cb7abcde2d3135d2ddd2c59f4602c68bb3605bd78e2e01988e6ad0b6_1.jpg (37KB, 553x653px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 553x653px

>>2702848
T. Cuck, shoot that nigga, he stealing your property.

>>2702746
Hey Max, does your body count as your property?

>>2702993
yes

>>2702731
How are you going to determine if someone isn't an immediate threat?
>>2702746
Doesn't it stop being a spook when you're capable of defending it physically?

>>2702731
No. But it is ethical to toss your standard issue pilum at them.

File: hahaendme.jpg (45KB, 500x378px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 500x378px

its just always shocked me that Americans can just murder people. Like, someone goes into your house and steals something, and you people don't seem to mind MURDERING ANOTHER PERSON just to protect your object. Its just incredibly shocking, I think about this constantly, your obsession with guns, all that gun violence, the casual attitude towards murdering people. countries that have common sense gun laws don't have these issues, why won't americans just get the connection. imagine that. just murdering something. because they stepped within your property. this is something americans can do and just treat it like its righteous. wow.

No one take the bait

File: papa-joe.jpg (106KB, 550x871px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 550x871px

>>2702731
>your property

>>2703471
t. Sven "take everything and fuck my wife, I'll be in my cuckshed" Jorgensen

>>2703343
regarding >>2702746 the point is that everything is MY property I just have yet to claim it. therefore to say your property is very anti Stirner and spooked.

>>2703471
If someone breaks into your house, there's no way of knowing what their intentions are, and home invasions have a very high incidence of violence perpetrated by the criminal. If they're willing to commit a crime and break into your house, then they may very well be willing to commit further crimes and harm you or your family, making it fully justified to defend yourself preemptively.

What if they have already bagged your goods and fleeing? Is it then okay to shoot them in the back to get your goods back?

File: 1486921159332.jpg (90KB, 957x621px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 957x621px

>>2702731
Yes, if they are being a sperg the only solution is to put them down

>>2703521
>wow don't shoot he's running away!
>after successfully burglarizing your house, he goes on to burglarize several more houses in your neighborhood, culminating with the rape and murders of a mother and her daughter
The deaths of innocent people sure is worth this moral highground for respecting the rights of violent criminals!

>>2702746
>I let some four eyed nerd dictates my interpretations of property
Fucking neck yourself

File: who would try to rob a gun store oh right ni-.webm (405KB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

405KB, 480x270px

ah yes time for the bimonthly 2nd amendment rights shitstorm.

>>2702763
Animals don't have morality or rationale. Why would you even bring them up?

>>2703497
Is it still spooked if the "property owner" puts a built in your head when you try and claim it?

>>2703733
Bullet*

>>2702731
I'm 100% fine with it. If I were on the jury I'd happily side with you. The second anyone breaks into your home, it's reasonable to kill them.

>>2702731
No, in a word.

Life > material items

>if they are not an immediate threat to you or others?
I'm not comfortable just sitting and waiting for someone to make a move on me before I decide whether he's a threat.

>>2703743
Yes well I traded my life(via wages aka working) for items so in effect by stealing you are murdering my past time. Yes, any would be burglar (breaking and enetering merely being on the property is iffy) should be killed at the owners decision

>>2703471
>like why even have stuff you care about lmao

File: 1492918279714.jpg (51KB, 640x477px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 640x477px

>>2702731
>buy foreclosed on property from under poor people
>enter my new home in the dead of night
>start shooting
Yes.

>>2703562
Anymore clips of civvies in fire fights? Shits cash

>>2702323
If stopped while or before comitting said crime the object most effective with least harm should be used. If this is a gun, you should do a warning shot before.

>>2702731
If they're on your property and you don't want them to be then they're violating the NAP and you are ethically allowed to if not obliged to use as much force as necessary to remove them.

>>2703797
Taking life cannot be justified in any circumstance.

It may be excused if options are limited but never, ever justified.

It is always wrong.

>>2702731
No but Americunts will always look for an excuse to kill someone legally and look like a hero in the process.

>>2703902
>Taking life cannot be justified in any circumstance.
prove it fag

>>2702763
Animals kill babies cause they don't have the same genetics.
If we have to base our morality in animals,I'd go with Bermuda. These guys were based, didn't hurt anybody, got along and het tons of sex.

>>2702848
Capitalism hurts doesn't it? Either you have to sacrifice what little morals you have left or accept the fact that you live in an unfair society where only the richest benefit.
Either way you lose.

>>2703513
That's right, next time i see a boy stealing apples from my orchard, i'll make sure to start throwing javelins until he looks like a hystrix because I don't know what his intentions are, he MIGHT just be carring a nuke in his anus, better make sure.
Ever heard of the presumption of innocence? We don't trust courts with saying someone is guilty "just in case", why the fuck would we trust some drunk redneck with a shotgun?

>>2703800
If you care about your tv to the point where you don't mind killing over it, that is a problem.

>>2704037
>i see a boy stealing apples from my orchard
>presumption of innocence
You literally JUST stated in your example that you saw him engaging in criminal activity.

>>2703538
>violent criminals
I don't think you know what that means.

>>2704050
Read the entire post dumbass.
His intentions are stealing apples. But he MIGHT want to kill me in the process, who knows? Better make sure!
Unless you're actually saying you'd kill a child over a bag of apples.

File: 1480317167116.png (436KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

436KB, 800x600px

>>2703471
Because Americans are materialistic beyond help.
They actually believe their TV to be worth more than human life, which is even weirder if you take in to account how religious they are.

>>2704057
He's a criminal either way.

File: bible-quote-it-is-easier-for-a-camel-to-go-through-the-eye-of-a.jpg (64KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 800x800px

>>2704059
Pic related, how did America fuck up so badly?

>>2704062
Wait, so you ARE saying you'd kill a child over a bag of apples?

>>2704066
I'd kill a child just for the hell of it but that's beside the point.

>>2704062
>>2704066
>when thirld worlders are more more moral than you.

>>2704070
>haha funny edgy reply
Quit dodging the bloody question.

>>2704059
Opium of the masses

>>2704064
what do they mean by rich? like economically rich or mentally rich? does god take only poor people because they are easily manipulated?

>>2703471
i would only protect my computer [spoiler]especially my main hard drive[/spoiler] because it contains sensitive information and some files that are pretty important for me.

>>2704048
Nah not a tv but an antique passed down from three generations, some old family stuff, some shit i've kept since my mother passed away, some gifts from my parents half-way across the country, yeah i'd shoot jamal or tyrone in the ass for that stuff. why should i just let things i hold dear be taken? to appease some random politician in the capitol? to fit in with your "logic"? thieves in the US at this point in time aren't thieving out of desperation, not where i live and in very few places. the local church has canned goods available for free with no questions asked, there's food banks, and homeless shelters less than 20 minutes away, there's no excuse for stealing other than wanting a quick buck or a pretty picture frame.

although the way this discussion has turned is pretty retarded, clearly by europeans who neither understand the laws here nor the circumstances. if you point a gun at some shitty thief going after a tv, they'll drop and run 90% of the time and there's no reason to shoot, but some might pull a gun or knife in which case i see no reason why you cant shoot him/her. it's clear from your first post you're a retard since you can only shoot someone in self-defense

>>2704098
Context, context, context.
Rich guy (as in money) walks up to Jesus, ask him what can he do to be a better person.
Jsus tells him to not kill etcetera, he nods and says he's already doing that.
Jesus tells him to help out the poor, sell shit he doesn't need and donate to charity.
Guy walks away all sad, then jesus turns to his desciples and says pic related.
It's not like if you're born rich uou might as well kys, it's just that sharing is carring and if you're hogging all the food for yourself while others are starving you're practically a murderer.

>>2704109
Ever heard of dropbox?

>>2704112
So breaking into a house because you want a preety picture frame isn't justifiable, but killing someone because you want a preety picture frame is?

>>2704112
>why should i just let things i hold dear be taken?
Made me think. Idk, morality? Dignity? Empathy?

>>2704112
>unironic racism
>blaming poor people for being poor
>complaining about Europeans being uneducated
How's your wife/cousin?

>>2704112
It's like i'm reading some pre-shooting manifesto.

>>2704070
I get dark humour but it gets really forced on this website.

>>2703869
>ethically allowed to if not obliged
So if a kid is stealing my cherries I HAVE to run them over with my lawn mower and bathe in his blood as his screams fill the fields, otherwise I'm a sinner?
Americans are crazy.

>>2704167
You have to or you show a lack of respect for the NAP, which is the foundation upon which a truly ideal society would have to be built, and by showing that you can not respect the NAP you prove yourself no better than a dirty rapist.

>>2704156
let's make it happen
>>2704154
>unironic racism
Majority of the criminals around here are non-white, but go ahead and live in your bubble.
>blaming poor people for being poor
They have plenty of places for food and shelter. Thievery is inexcusable.
>oh but muh disney movies
>muh poor orphan driven to crime
>complaining about Europeans being uneducate
You are.
>>2704151
>morality
Subjective, dumbass
>Dignity
I've got enough to stand by my beliefs
>Empathy
For what?
>>2704144
>ownership doesn't exist
take it up with the law if you've got a problem with me having things.

>>2704066
Hell yes I would. That bag of apples is worth far more then some stupid whore's obnoxious crotch dropping.

>>2704170
Do you have an altar in your house or what?

>>2704170
>being this delusional

>>2704182
Yes, with a picture of Rothbard. I pray to it thrice a day before every meal.

>>2704022
>be not capitalist
>my vintage cars are only valuable because it's amazing a lada survived a year on four wheels

>>2704176
>Thievery is inexcusable
America fuck yeah

>>2704191
t. thief
I thought europe was so great with that welfare system what happened?

well are they a threat to your property or not? The important thing here is
>property

>>2704198
I only steal from big conglomerates, mate. But don't pull out your gun! I'm heading right now to the deathcamps for thievery.

>>2704225
>breaking god's commandments
good, rot in hell, fucker

>>2704225
Who do you think is punished when someone steals from Walmart?

>>2704239
no one because i can steal because the corporations are evil!

File: 137202045998.jpg (22KB, 400x263px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 400x263px

>>2704239
Not me, that's for sure.

File: nigger home raid.webm (2MB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 640x360px

>>2702731

Yes

>>2702731
yes

>>2703733
No, Stirner's definition of property is what a man or woman can defend.

File: stirner giggle.jpg (43KB, 287x464px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 287x464px

>>2702731
>property
ancaps pls leave

>>2703471
I sorta agree with you

There was something on /pol/ a while back where some guy shot an intruder in his house. Turns out the intruder was drunk, and mistook his neighbours house for his own. The drunk guy broke into the house, was having a shower, and the home owner even had a conversation with him. The home owner (being a sociopathic fuck) went and got a gun and shot the drunk guy and tried to claim he had a right to because he was on his property.

The entire thread was Americans defending the home owner with > muh rights, when everyone else was trying to get the point across that shooting an intruder is an incredibly over the top way of dealing with it.

File: 1487266401672.png (3MB, 1920x1644px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1920x1644px

>>2702731
>accidentally walk on neighbor's lawn
>get shot in the face

Only is America friends.

I don't understand how you can support current system of private property, capitalism, etc without supporting use of force including lethal force to defend property.

>>2702731
Yes, assuming you confirmed invaders bad intentions, of course.

>>2702787
why would you shoot a man before throwing him out of a plane?

not sure a big guy would do that and I have been told I'm a big guy

You can tell which of these anons are Europeans and Canadians.

Only the same kind of idiots who have made it legal for shitskins to rape their women would also be decrying Americans for being naturally defensive of their homes.

>>2702731
that would be overkill

you try to take your property back and if they are willing to use violence to stop you then you shoot

>>2704527
>bat hairclip
>upside down cross
wow that smug animu grill is such a badass

>>2704859
Why risk closing the distance and give them the chance to hurt you?

>>2704022
>sacrifice morals
What if "bad people doing bad things and getting away with it" is offensive to my morals? Shooting the person victimizing me is simply justice being done.

>>2702731
Yes. The invader forfeited his life

>>2704871
>guy steals TV
>shoot him in face
>justice served

>>2702731
Shoot to make unable to flee (i.e., shoot in the leg)? Yes. Their right to freedom from bodily harm is trumped by your right to property.
Shoot to kill? No. Their right to life trumps your right to own property.

>>2704936
fucking pussy

>>2704948
You solved the captcha to make that post?

Pretty sad, brainlet.

>>2704112
yeah I always go for the family photos when I'm trying to find shit to sell

>>2704959
At least I have the balls to defend my family, stay cucked.

>>2704965
Just shoot them in the leg bro, its so easy, that's why police officiers and people with actual training do that.

Just shoot them in the leg.

>>2704970
>giving tyrone a chance to use his gun
That's how you end up with a dead kid faggot

>thief breaks in and rips out $30 worth of wiring
>destroys months of work
Cut their hands off for all I care.

>>2704965
Except that this isn't at all exhibited through shooting that person, since OP presupposes:
>if they are not an immediate threat to you or others?

For you to see this, you would've had to read and understand the OP, though, rather than just giving in to a spastic reaction to signal your manliness on a Persian carpet making website.

>>2704066
No, but I would pull a gun on him, get his attention, and then turn him over to the appropriate authority. As a citizen, I have an obligation to uphold the social contract in situations where the government is not able to do so. The social contract inherently relies on force.

>>2704936
>shoot to make unable to flee
Want to know how I know you've never held a gun?

>>2705036
>can't discriminate intention and success
Want to know how I know you've never read a book?

>>2702731
Ethics are subjective
>/thread

Is it ethical for me to test out my new Colt 1911? Yes, yes it is.

>>2705159
1911.

Nice subsonic round and low capacity kiddo.

>>2705159
>Ethics are subjective
Most philosophers disagree.

>>2703753
Suppose you go on vacation for a week, and worry about a break in while you're away. Should you be allowed to set up a shotgun trap to blow away a potential intruder into your empty (of people) house?

>>2705179
Yeah but a mine sounds much more efficient than that.

File: 3546546.jpg (9KB, 300x225px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 300x225px

>>2702731
>Is it ethical to shoot someone in defense of your property if they are not an immediate threat to you or others?

It should be because by stealing your property, they're stealing your "life energy" that you expended to get that property.

>>2705211
So why not extend that concept? If your stock broker makes bad investments on your behalf, you can shoot him? What about someone you have a contract dispute with? Just gun them down? In either case they're costing you property and by extension your "life".

Is it okay to kill another if they dirtied your clothes? Or destroyed your computer? Or deleted your emails? Or cut your hair wrong?

File: 1290807515723.png (445KB, 586x457px) Image search: [Google]

445KB, 586x457px

>>2705222
>If your stock broker makes bad investments on your behalf, you can shoot him?

In that context, no, as you can presumably sue him for fraud or whatever but in the case of someone breaking into your home and stealing your tv; yes, you should be allowed to shoot them (assuming they don't immediately surrender).

>>2705222
You've given your stock broker permission to manage your property.

>>2705240
Incompetence is not necessarily fraudulent. And you can presumably sue your thief for the value of your property. You haven't articulated any difference solely on the basis of property being equivalent to a portion of your life.

>>2705253
So?>>2705211 very clearly made an equivalent between your property and your life. Permission or no, if we accept that premise, a crappy broker is costing you your property and therefore your life. If threat to property justifies a deadly force, I should be able to kill him. Or you're stuck with the notion that something other than defense of property justifies deadly force.

>>2703471
I'm not even American and I'd have no problem with blasting someone away if they were intruding. I'd gladly put a nigger to sleep if I caught one carrying away even a small item, if doing so were legal

>>2703471
>>2704059
>muh human lives
fuck off. Their existence isn't a justification for it; I should be able to shoot human trash invading my property. If I saw a couple of niggers in my house taking my things, I'd shoot them up, not necessarily killing them, but providing them with a lot of pain. It's not because I'm materialistic; I just hate it when uncivilized human trash interferes with my private property

>>2704022
>implying socialism isn't equivalent to that anon's situation
wew lad

>>2704429
commies pls leave

>>2705271
>Permission or no
You can't just hand wave it away.

>>2705271
>>2705222
If you hire a stockbroker you typically come to an agreement that there is a possibility that your money will be lost, and this is simply a risk that comes with investment. All business opportunities and investments come with risk. No stockbroker would ever take you on as a client if you refused to accept this.
You have no existing agreements with a random thief. The thief simply wishes to deprive you of your hard earned wealth either through force or without your knowledge.

File: 1492570186313.gif (2MB, 320x165px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x165px

>>2702731

It depends on the specific context, but in general, the law should side with property owners in order to deter crime. Also, WTF does this have to do with history?

>>2705388
>& Humanities

>>2705344
Yes I can. Both are equally threatening to your property interests.
>>2705359
Again, so what? The anon I originally responded to was quite clear. Since labor, and this life, was expended to acquire property, that property is equivalent to a portion of your life, and this lethal force is justifiable to defend that property. Why does the method or intention of the deprived of your property matter if you accept that premise? And if you don't accept that premise, what are you actually justifying your employment of lethal force with?

File: 1491007571768.jpg (32KB, 450x410px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 450x410px

>>2704936

>Their right to life trumps your right to own property.

File: cat_008_jojo.jpg (74KB, 496x515px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 496x515px

>>2705500
>ironic restatement of interlocutor's statement, without offering any counterarguments

>>2705490
>Why does the method or intention of the deprived of your property matter if you accept that premise?
Because human society would not exist if people were incapable of coming to agreements that allow them to collaborate with one another without resorting to violence if something goes wrong.

>And if you don't accept that premise, what are you actually justifying your employment of lethal force with?
You're presenting a false dichotomy. Nobody is buying this bizarre equivalency you're trying to set up. It's true that you can lose property either way, but the situations are totally different. You're pretending that agreements between business partners are meaningless when that clearly isn't the case.

File: retarded right.png (11KB, 79x206px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 79x206px

>>2705490
>If someone tried to stab you, it's a good reason to respond with lethal force.

OH YEAH?!? WELL WHAT A BOUT S URGEON, HUH? THEY STICK KNIVES IN YOU!

>You come to an agreement with a surgeon that this is acceptable because you need some ailment fixed. It's not the same as having a random attacker try to harm you for no reason.

YEAH WELL AGREEMENTS DON'T MATTER! EITHER WAY YOU'RE GETTING STABBED.

>>2705045
The issue is not that you aren't likely to succeed. The issue is that you aren't supposed to fire unless you are trying to kill. In fact, you'd get in more trouble for doing so, since you shot in a situation that doesn't call for lethal force

>>2705513
>Because human society would not exist if people were incapable of coming to agreements that allow them to collaborate with one another without resorting to violence if something goes wrong.

It worked that way everywhere blood feud was a thing, often for centuries.

>You're presenting a false dichotomy. Nobody is buying this bizarre equivalency you're trying to set up. It's true that you can lose property either way, but the situations are totally different. You're pretending that agreements between business partners are meaningless when that clearly isn't the case
No, what I'm saying is that the difference between the two is explicitly NOT in the level of threat to property interests, and that therefore to claim that lethal force is justifiable in cases to protect property interests is not in fact justifiable and is not a position people honestly hold; they're instead employing lethal force for other reasons, like protection of the self, or punishing antisocial elements of society.

>>2705521
Very interesting strawman you have there. However, my cases both present actual threats to property interests, one consented to, one not. A surgeon performing surgery is presumably not threatening your life, and one who does is subject to things like medical battery laws. Furthermore, you cannot legally, at least in the U.S. Consent to things like being murdered.

>Europeans can't discuss defense of self and property with resorting to reductio ad absurdum

Sad desu

>>2705535
>a surgeon is not a threat to your life
http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2013/09/20/224507654/how-many-die-from-medical-mistakes-in-u-s-hospitals

>Now comes a study in the current issue of the Journal of Patient Safety that says the numbers may be much higher — between 210,000 and 440,000 patients each year who go to the hospital for care suffer some type of preventable harm that contributes to their death.

Whenever you go to a surgeon you are accepting that death or other serious complications are a possibility.

>you can't consent to being murdered
But you can consent to having a surgery preformed that may result in your death. Try reading some of the forms people need to sign before undergoing a heart transplant.

I pissed the bed last night and now my pyjamas smell like urine

File: 1490139296491.png (26KB, 657x527px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 657x527px

>pay doctor for assisted suicide
>shoot him as he was a threat to my life and agreements don't matter

>>2705287
>I'm not materialistic, I just hate when humans touch my materials.

>>2705540
>still not getting it.
When those surgeons make those mistakes, they do in fact endanger a life interest, maybe even just as much as some psycho on a stabbing spree. Nevertheless, there's a reason one is a murderer and the other is some sort of medical malpractice/ negligent homicide at most case. THERE IS MORE GOING ON THAN JUST THE INTEREST THE VICTIM SYANDS TO LOSE OUT ON YOU STUPID FUCKER. That is why we have these distinctions enshrined in law in the first place. But, IF (and I am not, nor am I suggesting you are.) you hold like this anon>>2705211 that mere threat to property, WITH NO OTHER CONSIDERATIONS, justifies lethal force, then it should equally apply to things like contract malfeasance, since those too, threaten property. Rather, it is those other factors, and not the property interest threat, that justify lethal force.

It's not even illegal in Germany, so yes, I would consider it ethical. I may not be the court, who decides whats just or unjust, but protecting my property with all at hand is a right of mine, and if someone decides to get shot for a TV, that's his problem, not mine.

>>2705579
>WITH NO OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
He never said that.

>>2702731

>When a person has reasonable grounds for believing that he is in imminent danger of being killed or receiving great bodily harm, he may act on such appearances and defend himself, even to the extent of using deadly force. In addition, a lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence is justified in using force, including deadly force, against an intruder or attacker to prevent a forcible entry into the home.

>>2705585
Thank you for that irrelevant post.

>>2705593

You are quite welcome.

>>2705579
>When those stockbrokers make those mistakes, they do in fact endanger a financial interest, maybe even just as much as some thief burglarizing your house. Nevertheless, there's a reason one is a thief and the other is some sort of financial malpractice/fraud at most case. THERE IS MORE GOING ON THAN JUST THE INTEREST THE VICTIM SYANDS TO LOSE OUT ON YOU STUPID FUCKER.
Great! I'm glad you agree with me.

File: all burglars are White guys.jpg (77KB, 915x400px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 915x400px

>>2705261
> You haven't articulated any difference solely on the basis of property being equivalent to a portion of your life.

A stock broker committing fraud can be sued to recover the loss (or maybe not, depending on what he’s got left?) but the odds of the cops catching that burglar who stole your tv (let alone recovering your tv) are slim to none and even if the cops do catch him, odds are he’s got nothing you can sue for to recover your lost "life energy".

But the issue here is that the stock broker’s crime cannot be corrected or prevented by the property owner _at the time the crime occurred_ one can only sue afterward.

On the other hand, that burglar standing in your living room with your tv in his hands, can be (and should be) stopped right then and there and the property owner shouldn’t face prosecution afterward.

In both cases your “life energy” is being stolen but in only the latter case, can you stop the theft.

>>2704865
what situation are you imagining here, I doubt a shoplifter will try to kill you after you've caught them

>>2705684
>
> > Why risk closing the distance and give them the chance to hurt you?
> what situation are you imagining here, I doubt a shoplifter will try to kill you after you've caught them

No, you're not a trained police officer and it isn't your job to arrest criminals.

It's FAR safer for you for shoot the criminal dead, (or tell him to GTFO) then to try and apprehend him, which only gives him a chance to attack and possibly kill you.

>>2704400
No, like somebody said earlier, everything is my property. When I exert power over it, it becomes my own property (own ownness as opposed to general ownness).

>>2705684
He could punch me in the face/head, tackle and wrestle me, stab me, grapple for my gun...

>>2705261
>sue your thief for the value of your property
How?

>>2705577
>nigger inside your house is carrying away your tv
>"just let him take it. Stop being so materialistic bro"

If you walk in on your wife taking dick is it ethical to shoot that man for giving something to your family?

>>2704109
C:\Users\Owner\Documents\NotPorn

>>2704059
>>2704064
What I learned today is the europoors are more than willing to let someone come in and take all their stuff

>>2703525
>a bunch of accidental occurrences in a single day lead a r9k autist to breaking into a house accidentally
>stutters because scared of gun and can't handle tense situations
>get shot
Spergs need protection not this

File: 1476208029559.png (112KB, 242x237px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 242x237px

>it's unethical to murder a baby in your body but it's okay to murder a person in your house

>>2704527
And how often does that actually happen?

File: 1490563952405.png (115KB, 335x296px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 335x296px

>>2706072
>It's okay to murder a child who hasn't even had the opportunity to see what light is but it's unethical to protect your family from a hostile force with the intent to harm

File: 1380508096197.jpg (20KB, 512x384px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 512x384px

>>2706084
>taking someone else's property is harm
>but a baby that will do nothing else than leech ofF your resources for years and years is harmless

>>2702731
You best believe I will have a gun ready if you're walking on my home at late hours. I don't care if they're not armed with a gun, safety to my household and the ones in it is the biggest priority. Who knows what could happen if I hesitate and don't act quickly.

File: 20.png (373KB, 555x484px) Image search: [Google]

373KB, 555x484px

>>2706096
>hindering the progress of others with ill intent isn't harm
>but investing in a product that could potentially benefit the world is harmful

File: 1491260949524.jpg (105KB, 677x590px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 677x590px

>>2706096
>taking someone else's property isn't harm

File: 1423572684224.jpg (29KB, 392x374px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 392x374px

>>2705866

>>2702731
CASTLE LAWS MUFUCKA

HIPPITY HOPPITY GET THE FUCK OFF MY PROPERTY

>>2706126
You're doing it wrong, read the posts before you and take note of your mistake.

>>2706148
What if it's not on your property?

>>2703513
this is the best answer to the post, why did the discussion go any further?
mental that people prefer cowering as an option to defending hearth and home from people willing and able to do you harm

File: open carry dad.jpg (32KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 640x360px

>>2706355

STAND YER GROUND LAWS MUFUCKA

HIPPITY HOPPITY ITS THE SAME ON PUBLIC PROPERTY

>>2706407
What if he's running away with your items?

>>2706680

You should be allowed to shoot him anyway but if you do, you'll get in trouble.

>>2702787
>Depends on whether or not you'll throw him out of a plane first.

this

>>2704059
American Ideas on the matter are left overs from old English Common law. However the UK did not really change its legal outlook on the matter till the 1920s, even that was slow going. for a period of time they had more accepting gun laws then the US after the National Firearms Act of 1934. Most the big changes happened in the 1950s for them.

For a period of time it looked like the US would follow the direction of the UK on gun law and self defense. Especially after the shooting of JFK. Then the crack epidemic of the 1980s happened. That one event changed national opinions on the matter. There is some evidence from the period that supports the idea that gun rights make people safe in the from of the state that moved to shall-issue CHS did see large drops of violent crime for those states. However that was not the only thing done in those states at the time. Shall-issue laws being passed by a state government was part of a movent to be tough on crime in those states, giving more power & funds to law enforcement etc.

>making everything communal property is a good idea
Why are commietards so braindead?

File: roofkoreans.jpg (186KB, 950x647px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 950x647px

If this had been /k/, this had been first post.

>>2702731
Is this a question Americans have to ask themselves often? Do you people live in constant fear of attack or something?

>>2702763
and thats why they are still animals, eating their own poo and so on

humans evoved to be more sophisticated so we avoid violence when we can

why is violence bad?
because its a risk to the specimen, you may or may not get shot yourself too

>>2705287
you yourself are that human trash

>>2708068
This is /his/

We know the history of Koreans and they are a cuck people.

There's little to admire about them.

>>2702731
>in defense of your property if they are not an immediate threat to you or others
give me a real world example

>>2702848

If it matters so much to you, don't let go, the threat of violence is all you need

>>2703902

It cannot be wrong that which is not optional.

>>2704470

Not even in the most ancapistani of states that would fly, the conversation makes the person a guest, not an intruder.

It's a wholly inappropiate example.

>>2702731
Ethics are a spook.

>>2704141
no? please tell me more about it.

>>2705899
it's actually superpr0n, still pretty close.

>>2704037
Better he steals my apples than the beautiful strawman you just built huh

>>2704970
Except they don't and that would get any police officer in the United States fired immediately for using a lethal weapon in a way that clearly shows they didn't fear for their life.

>>2704970
And what if the bullet nicks the femoral?

>>2706680
Hippity hoppity put down my property

>>2702731
>Is it ethical to shoot someone in defense of your property if they are not an immediate threat to you or others?
I'd personally say it's depending on context. If it's some kid who steals an apple from your fruit stand in the middle of a bazaar I don't think it'd be right to shoot him. If someone invades your home with intent to damage or steal your property I feel they've taken the risk knowing they could get shot and you have every ethical right to shoot them.

File: smoke detector.jpg (260KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

260KB, 500x500px

>>2708075
>Do you people live in constant fear of fire or something?

>>2709280
/thread

>>2709280
I see it as depending on factors like
>is the property replaceable
>likelihood of recovering the property
>value of property in comparison to your total wealth
>is property necessary for your livelihood

File: 1470657151815.jpg (150KB, 718x960px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 718x960px

>>2708481
> > in defense of your property if they are not an immediate threat to you or others
> give me a real world example

A dundu breaks into your garage and while trying to walk off with your air compressor, you catch him in the act.

If he drops the air compressor (or even if he doesn’t) and runs off, he is no longer legally considered a “threat” and if you shoot him in the back as he’s running away, you’ll more than likely get arrested.

But the reality is that he _still_ is a threat even when running away, as now he knows your schedule, how big/strong you are, what other valuable stuff you’ve got in the garage, etc. and the courts should bend over backward to protect the law abiding property owner from prosecution for defending their property and the “life energy” expended in acquiring it.

File: HAL9000.gif (466KB, 500x235px) Image search: [Google]

466KB, 500x235px

>>2709430
>I see it as depending on factors like
>>is the property replaceable
>>likelihood of recovering the property
>>value of property in comparison to your total wealth
>>is property necessary for your livelihood

Lucky for me, I’m a HAL 9000 computer and can instantly make those calculations in a fraction of a second, after being awakened from a deep sleep at 3:00am by the dindu breaking into my home…

>>2702731
reminds me of a story i heard that a man paid for a prositute in texas, she tried to get off with the pimp, the John kills the pimp but the john goes free bc the pimp stole property

>>2710059
paying someone for a service doesn't make them your property
if I pay someone to paint my house, I don't own that person

>>2702731
It depends, are you in Texas?

>>2702746
I thought Stirner defined property as that which you were able to retain through strength/violence if necessary.

So wouldn't he be fine with an individual shooting someone in defense of their property?

File: 1453337703767 - Copy.gif (429KB, 300x458px) Image search: [Google]

429KB, 300x458px

>>2703471
Most Americans live Benedictine existence in a suburban hellscape where - in their entire lives - they do not come into immediate contact with more than ~50 people. Their families and property become sacrosanct; these things are literally their only tethers to a grip on reality.

When you combine this with America's unique gun culture, you produce people who spend their entire lives fantasizing about the day when some fantastic wide-nosed jigaboo will come crashing through their front door looking for da white wimmin. The only thing is, this shit almost never happens. When it does, it gets blown up on Fox News, and you have some American Gothic submental mongoloid sitting in front of his modular ranch home in Oklahoma muttering "at least I protected m'own life, hyuck".

>>2711129
What qualifies as immediate contact?

>>2706072

Defending your home against intrusion isn't murder, it's self-defense.

>>2711151
Talking to someone, with the exclusion of transaction like ringing up your shit with a cashier, giving a waitress your order, etc.

>>2711184

So, the same as Euros and everybody else on the planet.

>>2702731
if you don't kill them, yes
if you kill them, then no

>>2708684
t. Every other nazi

desu I don't know where this is from (př rather, whom). Source?

>>2711066
Yes, but you're replying to a leftypol memer who never actually read Stirner

>>2705490
Youre a moron who cant understand nuance.

>>2702763
So what, you just gunna shoot the fucking mailman for invading your territory?

Your property is your life. You worked hard for it, you made sacrifices for it. Your property is your life, and you have the right to defend your life by using lethal force.

>>2702731
>Is it ethical
Yes. They're breaching the rules you abide to, which waives their right to be protected by those same rules.
>Is it efficient
No. They might have a good reason for their actions and turning them away could be damaging to you.

>>2702806
This. Ethical as fuck.

Stealing my property is stealing my money which is stealing my time which is stealing my life.

>all of these surgeon, doctor, stock broker analogies

Guess europoors dont understand the concept of consent after being walked over all of their lives

>>2702848
>>2702852
>>2704190
>>2704871
>>2705293
>been saving up to buy a cure for my daugher cancer
>carrying large amount of cash
>get mugged
>the right thing to do is let the thief escape with the fruit of my years of labor
>Fuck this shit
>Mug the first motherfucker I see
That's a cicle, It's no one's fault, it's capitalism fault

>>2715721
>Your property is your life

>>2716797
What does someone stealing your money have anything to do with capitalism? Commies are so retarded

>>2716825
>What does someone stealing your money have anything to do with capitalism
You think that thiefs do that shit because is funny or easy? I made an example of someone who has to pay medical bills for a reason, in his position what you can do?

File: self defence_1.webm (3MB, 700x394px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 700x394px

>>2716837
Yes, most thieves aren't sympathetic Robin Hood type motherfuckers, but dumb, aggressive hood rats, or druggies too far gone to help. Even if a thief did have a sob story like a loved one needing medical supplies, how does that apply to his victim, a person who also most likely has loved ones to support? Maybe the mugger schmuck in your retarded example shoulda bought a gun like every other normal American who handles large amounts of cash physically.

>>2716837
>in his position what you can do?
Pan handle, get a job, or just don't pay the bill.

File: 1490054354849.jpg (106KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 1280x720px

>>2716797
wew

>>2705176
Majority of any given group of people that doesn't specifically consist of really smart ones are retards, metaethicists included.

>>2702731
No. Or as any American would say: yes.

File: 1493204531359.png (54KB, 592x554px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 592x554px

>>2716797
>you can't blast a thief for killing your daughter but you can steal from others

>>2716802
That's what I'm saying.

>>2703471
your argument is centered on the belief that human lives hold value. What is the intrinsic value of another humans life, not your own or of someone who has something to offer you?

>>2704112
All the eurofags are lighting you up but i completely support your position and points.

>>2704144
>>2704151
>>2704154
>>2704156
>nobody can even field any counter arguments other than

>THE NIGGER'S LIFE IS WORTH MORE THAN YOURS JUST LET HIM TAKE EVERYTHING
>LOL FUTURE SCHOOL SHOOTER SPOTTED
>OMG HOW DARE SOMEONE DEFEND THEIR PROPERTY

Why are yuros so fucking cucked? I don't get it. Is it "refined" now to let someone take anything they want from your property and potentially harm you without any fuss?

Yes.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

bup

File: 1452754774900.png (3MB, 2480x3507px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2480x3507px

What's with all the europeans in this thread? If people are armed and legally able to defend their life and property, what does that tell potential robbers? It sends them a warning to maybe think twice about robbing houses. Most burglaries are done when the homeowner isn't home, so the fact that a burglar would choose to break in during the times when they are home shows a lack of self-preservation, and a willing to engage in a confrontation. You shouldn't have to take chances with your life or propety. Now I think this is different in cases like the Montana man who purposefully baited an exchange student who didn't know better. But during a confusing home invasion, with someone who's clearly agressive, you should have every right to defend yourself.

>>2703848
LIAR dont listen to this fudd lore shit.

>>2704053
>implying burglary isn't an inherently violent crime

>>2704855
>t legal for shitskins to rape their women
Man in canada shot three men in cold blood for being on his property RCMP didnt give a fuck...Welcome to canada bud, the real ones are not mooslim.

>>2705866
It should be but it isnt...Dont get married or hope you made the right choice in a women (pfft)

>>2709457
>not to mention getting his homiest to do a drive by...

>>2709492
>HAL 9000 computer and can instantly make those calculations in a fraction of a second, after being awakened from a deep sleep at 3:00am
Well not if you dont train and learn to be a light sleeper...My army buddy is always getting woke up by his dog walking on wood tile.

>>2711520
This guys a retard or a shit troll...
Americans and a lot of other people refuse to live in a place with rampant crime guns are a deterrent.

>>2704260
>if they're not an immediate threat to you or others

>>2716802
Oh look its a jolly hobo who spends winters out side...Are you bear grills? do you drink piss?

>>2722376
based /polr9k/

>>2708075
Do you think the

>be american
>get shot

Is merely a meme and nothing else?