It depends on the property. Someone is trying to burn down my house? At the best that's everything I own and where I shelter my family. At wore it's an attempt to kill us all. Yeah, I'd use lethal force to stop that. Or if we were incredibly poor and it was the bread I needed to keep my children alive. But most things are just things, and the twenty hours of my life I used to buy my big screen TV (85" QLED with the new soundbar we just put in) wouldn't be worth ending someone else's life over. But if you are in my house with a weapon against my will I can't tell if you are only there for property. So while I wouldn't shoot a pair of guys running away with my TV I probably would if they were coming up to the master bedroom to take it. My family is likely in that room.
see, there's the thing, the big boxes are charging boutique prices. they don't just drive up the price of food, they drive up the price of real estate.
even without the theft, bigbox retail department stores are going the way of the strip mall, especially in smaller towns. Hell, Target couldn't even get a foothold here when they tried 10ish years ago. Even in the outer reaches of 905 land and suburban Karens. now we could go into how wal mart consumes local economies leaving people on welfare or working for them... in either case, inevitably inhabiting the social strata that steals from them. so yeah.. number 2, mostly.
I admit, I was fishing for the psychology of how someone could value stuff over human beings. Wow, I got more than I bargained for. It really is a belief in totem magic as an extension of narcissism. I knew the American right in general totem-ized guns, and Ayn Rand specifically totem-ized dollars, but holy shit, totem-izing the very act of consumerism, that's a new one on me. And it shouldn't have been. Shame on me for not making the connection myself. Of course people like this would see their trinkets as horcruxes. As stand-in children. Of course they would.
How about the right to vote? It’s meaningless ritual, most of the time. Compared to the value of a human life, there’s absolutely no call for violent resistance to someone trying to unjustly take that right from you. Whoever is doing that to you, their life is much more valuable than your right to vote. Right?
Okay you don’t accept that one. How about limb? Crazy dude wants to take your hand for his collection. You willing to say no one should be able to kill to protect themselves from that?
Okay so rights and limbs are worth killing for. How about land? Were the American Indians wrong to attack the US Army trying to push them into reservations?
Is it wrong that I value what I have - even if all of it combined is worth less than $500? and, yea, I'm sorry someone's life sucks so much that they feel they have no other choice than to steal. But, honestly, no one that person steals from, including me and my less that $500 worth of crap, is doing much better than that person. So, why should s/he be more important than me? I am absolutely certain I'd never shoot someone stealing from me. But, I'm not other people and if those other people feel so strongly about keeping the meager possessions that they are willing to injure someone trying to steal it, who am I to judge them?
and there we have it. It's not that you disagree with UA, you just don't like the way he says things. OK BOYS, LETS WRAP IT UP. WE'RE DONE HERE. SHUT THIS PUPPY DOWN.
You act as if this is new information. American right. Ayn Rand. OMFG Consumerism!!!! Humans have been killing each other since before we climbed out of trees and started walking upright.
Is it consumerism? or is it because there's so god damned many people on the planet? or is it because we have allowed the evolution of our existence to get to the point in which most adults are either perpetually angry or depressed?
The real answer is that it's not OK to kill anyone for any reason, defense of self/other people, defense of property, or otherwise. As a society, we excuse use of deadly force in defense of self/other people from a legal standpoint, but it's still taking a life.
it's very easy to sit in security and judge others. I've done so myself. But, I've also lived enough to know that people react in unexpected ways - many times unexpected than what that person even expected. One thing that has stayed with me from childhood is judge not lest ye be judged. I've made mistakes. Are those mistakes worse than other people? I don't know. and I don't care. I did what I did. If you're comfortable judging others, more power to you. you do you and I'll do me.
I think you meant "rights and limbs are [not] worth killing for"? I'm confused. On aboriginals they were at war and we with them. We were in the wrong. Different environment and culture. Were the aboriginals wrong? Hell no, they were fighting for existence. Should I protect my quarter acre plot with a pulte shack on it from the steam roller wanting to put that newfangled four lane in with semi-automatic guns? Hell no. There are other forms of redress. Should Ukraines mount opposition to Putin for taking their land including killing Russians in uniform? Hell yes.
Nope, gotta reject this. There are some justifiable reasons to kill and they do include self-defense and the defense of others.
I'm comfortable saying owning a gun is more dangerous to the gun owner than any protection it gives them and their family. I'm judging gun ownership, yes. Same as I do Ford ownership.
It depends what the alternatives are. It's certainly possible to come up with (real and imagined) scenarios where those are unacceptable.
What this question boils down to is the legitimacy of using lethal means to protect property. Which really means “is there a right to property?” And the answer is yes.
What is it with libertarians, and thinking they're dictating the new dictionary to an invisible transcriptionist?
