From: PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Law, inalienable Rights, and the Legitimate Use of Force
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 19:56:45 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.004622.15424@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:

>In article <pa142548.823.727464967@utkvm1.utk.edu> pa142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>>>	Personally, I feel that a person is justified in using lethal force
>>>	in some cases, to protect property.  Where that line is drawn is
>>>	problematical, at best.  Got any ideas??
>

**!!! Careful editing the attribution line there sport!  I don't advocate 
this position !!**

>>Beats me.  I was hoping you did.  I am not comfortable with stating that "no 
>>person may harm another person in defense of property."  But I can't morally 
>>justify shooting someone to keep him from stealing my TV. 
>
>I think the issue should be the threat, not the alternatives: If
>someone pulls a knife on you and says, "Your wallet or your life",
>he has threatened to kill you. I think this threat of deadly force
>justifies self-defence. The fact that you have other options isn't
>relevant: You _know_ your attacker is willing and ready to harm
>you. You don't know that he will keep his promise, and leave you
>alone if you cooperate. 

I have no issue with this.  I agree. I am concerned here with the 
philosophical or moral implications of defending property.  What if he pick'
s your pocket and walks away, no threat implied?


>
>>...But I'm also not 
>>comfortable just letting him get away with it.  Picture this: 
>
>>A brick comes sailing through the living room window, followed by a voice:
>>"I'm just here to steal the TV, man.  I need a hit of crack."
>>Then a young male slowly enters the window, hands up, back to you, and walks 
>>to the TV.  He takes it from the wall, at no time going near you or makeing 
>>any threatening motions.  Then he walks with the TV.  At no time did he 
>>threaten you.  He made it clear that he only wanted your worldly goods.
>
>In such a case, I'd stand between him and the television. That would
>force him to choose between leaving and using/threatening violence
>to get the television. The choice is up to him. If he leaves, I 
>prefectly happy. If he threatens me, or tries to harm me, I would
>feel prefectly justified in defending my self. Given the facts of
>a thrown brick and forced entry, I suspect he'd choose violence:
>I wouldn't act until threatened, but I'd have a weapon available.

That was the solution presented to me, and works for practical purposes.  He 
must stay, leave the TV, or initiate violence.  At that point you may be 
morally able to use force.  But you are still defending life, not property, 
at that point.

>
>>...Is there a 
>>justification for using lethal force when you KNOW your life is not 
>>threatened?
>
>There is another issue, in the case of defending property: Financial
>losses _might_ threaten your life (or at least your health). Consider
>the shop owners in Los Angeles, during last year's riots: Many had
>no insurance and their stores were their only means of survival. In
>that case, the loss of property would mean living impoverished on
>the streets. That certainly seems to consitiute (indirectly) a
>threat to life and health, so self-defence wouldn't be unreasonable.

That's an interesting point.  Anyone else have anything to add?

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
E-Mail to PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu, mail to ARCHER at that address will
bounce.    "Don't blame me, I voted Libertarian."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=