Let’s suppose in a lolbertarian society if I’m walking in the street and a car is about to hit me so I jump into...

Let’s suppose in a lolbertarian society if I’m walking in the street and a car is about to hit me so I jump into the side of the road on someone’s property.

Do they have the right to shoot me for trespassing?

Other urls found in this thread:

archive.is/6Yign
youtube.com/watch?v=hQx76WemmQg
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

No. People who say stuff like that are being retarded.

Can we just stop with this snake symbolism. It's time is done.

^this
/thread

No, because it was accidental.

Why?

So when is shooting someone justified for trespassing?

Give me conditions.

Prefuckingcisely

the lolbert is probably smoking weed and having sex with lady boys and wouldn't have noticed you on his lawn, or if the car swerved and entered his living room.

When someone intentionally trying to harm you, your family, or anybody that is allowed on your property

Not really, the dems are attempting to tread all over the Constitution.

First things first, you haven't even told me how you magically built the roads in your libertarian hypothetical.

Nobody would hold that as reasonable.
If they did, hardly anyone would associate with them and they'd be pariahs.
If the people you live around and associate with or among would treat that person as justified in shooting your or wouldn't sanction him at all, everything was already a lost cause, and the only solace you have is that man will be judged for being so unreasonable, selfish and pitiless.

So if they’re not trying to harm you but steal your possessions and they’re unarmed you’re not allowed to shoot them?

Nice

You just comp that shit nigga

The same people who build them now - private contractors.

There are very, very few people who would ever actually run out of their house with a shotgun just because someone else set a food on their lawn. Most of those people would live far away from everyone else in a more voluntary society in the first place. It wouldn't be considered reasonable to even give you shit unless they asked you to leave and you then refused to leave.

no u addlepated moron, there's such thing as the Principle of Proportionality in law

A jury wouldn't consider that self defense. They would hang you on the courthouse lawn.

So it’s lawful to shoot any trespassers?

If they are unarmed, the threat of somebody shooting them for unlawful trespassing would be a strong enough deterrent to not break into someone's house and steal shit in the first place

archive.is/6Yign
poor people put into prison for being poor and broke apart a 7 family husband and wife and 5 kids all
white

There is nothing stopping you from doing it though brainlet, since it doesn't violate the NAP. Meanwhile in real life you'd be breaking the law and get arrested

Ancaps are fucking retards

I asked you if they’re unarmed but only want to steal your property are you justified in shooting them or not?

It might be or it might not - law is whatever law is. Anarchism doesn't tell you what law ought to be among voluntary participants in being bound to some legal system.
It certainly isn't moral - being violent, selfish, and pitiless are sinful.

What the fuck are you talking about?>Implying that it is okay to steal someone's shit and get away with it

State goons are goons.

If they refuse to leave after being instructed to do so, yes

Theft is harm you fucking asshat.

So you can’t use violence against them until they refuse to leave?

I’m just trying to understand at what point you’re able to use violence against someone once they cross your property line.

To play devil's advocate, the parents were abusing their children with not providing them basic essentals for survival.

When one's self is in danger.

Sounds more like you're trying to start an arguement.

That definition excludes property?

>I only want to take from you what is yours for myself
Theft is sinful.

Anyone can use violence at any time. The question of moral justification in doing so in anarchism is only that a person shouldn't initiate violence against persons or property of others.

Yet all the children were alive. How could it be that helpless children nevertheless lived without any assistance? Not to say these were necessarily good parents, but obviously their contribution to their children wasn't nothing.

The point is drawn if they are intentionally trying to harm you/family and friends, steal your possessions, or destroy your property.

If they enter your property with the intent of stealing something even though they are unarmed, it is still justified. I'd give them a warning. I'd say "Leave now without my posessions and I won't put a bullet through you." They would be attempting to harm you through stealing the fruits of your labor.

are you a nigger?

Whatever infringes on a person's liberty.

So if they’re just squatting in your property in a corner because they’re homeless are you able to remove them or not?

What are you trying to pidgeonhole here? You're bad at arguing. If someone is trying to steal shit from my house and they refuse to leave after I give them a COURTESY warning. I'm going to shoot them. If they're visibly armed and on my property, I'm going to shoot them. Stop nitpicking, next you'll say "what if they're armed but they knock on your door offering you a bible"

Yes. If they're not even offering to trade something in return for squatting on my property, then definitely yes. If I don't like their offer then they can't stay either.

It is true that the children were alive. However, the conditions the children faced was not a healthy environment for children to develop.
The choice on whether or not to remove a squatter on your private property is up to the owner to decide.

Oh this is an easy one! I pull out my King James Bible, clearly a different bible than they offer me, and shoot them for aggressing on my right to which Bible I want to read!

This. If a guy kept shooting everyone who accidentally came onto his property all the other AnCaps would get together and get rid of him.

The average Indian or Chinese is no better. Are you saying poverty is immoral???

Thanks for calling out his slippery bullshit.

I can understand
>lawful
>| property line |
>unlawful

But I can’t understand if the rule above does not apply at what point is it lawful or unlawful.

What the hell are you trying to go with this, Pinko?

And if he had a reinforced concrete fortress with RPGs, missiles and motion detection guns?

Lawful or unlawful to what? Shoot the squatter? If they refuse to leave and you've been calm and peaceful then you have every right to tell them to leave with violence if necessary. IF necessary is the key word. We have that right as Americans pretty much already. Only instead of us getting to commit the violence we pick up the phone and call the police. They come and politely ask the person to leave and if they still refuse it's off to jail.

If you still can not understand then move to commiefornia, you will be in good company.

dude in MAY. they need?
air conditioning? x
heat? x
you dont know i had friends who shit in buckets and poured it out. They have wood stoves and kerosene.
what evidence do you have of them not providing? what? And they wherent on the GRID is all i know. the electric the water the trash GRID. The neighbor was probably a redneck copdicksucker who ratted on him for getting water out of his spigot outside.
fuck all thepieces of shit who done that to them

You're trying to take a moral stance on the sheer fact that some people are poor.
Yeah people are poor - therefore.... what? What is your moral conclusion from the fact that some children live in poverty? That they SHOULDN'T live in poverty? That the parents are being immoral because they and/or their children live in poverty?
I have no idea what you're even trying to imply if not that you think poverty itself is "wrong".

I think what LsGsDQ3e was trying to say is that since you own the property, you are the boss.
So, if a squatter wanted to live on your land in exchange for working on said land, that is fine.

Easy. Recreational nukes.

Jump on the sidewalk instead you dumb nigger.

McNuke.

another thing too i bet
the judge comes to court drunk
everyone else is high
then after they fuck over these people they go home, get drunk and beat their kids.

>forgot pic

But only if you agree to it. You pretty much got it. Because it's your land it's your right to do with it as you please. If you want 13 squatters outside mowing your lawn to sleep on it, hey you do you.

>implying he doesn’t have an 100 foot deep underground reinforced concrete bunker and tunnels to other properties

That is an oddly specific situation that has never happened in a judicial or Civil court. Not saying it can't happen, but it hasn't yet.

you have a right to property, but not to kill people over trespassing. MAybe you got a sign up that says tresspassers will be shot then its LEGAL

ok /thread

What's with this meme about everyone in AnCap societies turning into base-building warlords?

No one in their right mind voluntarily chooses to live in a community where the level of trust between neighbors is so low that you have to stock up on military-grade weaponry to ensure that no one violates your freedoms.

has happened
shutup shill

They have every right to shoot you for being an absolute colossal fuckwit

I think most judges are wicked people.
I think most people's experiences with judges would support that hypothesis even if the base thing that judges do all but confirms it.

if i walk into the court, half the lawyers cant hold still, teh judge is snorting. its a joke

Geothermal bombing. Yeah we've been working the child soldiers like crazy to pump out some stuff in the privately owned labs that would put the best guys in the government to shame.

Than an army of McMutated McMoles with McLazerbeams on their freaking heads!
Yeah, I got the joke.

You mean these RPGs I've been installing were pointless?

i mean that there oging ot have a case over the morality of some guys drug use and fuck up your entire fuckig life over it. you would thik the cocksuckers who presides over it wouldnt be high,
but you cant gaurantee thtat, withotu piss testing everyone of them before they come in. but thats the reason they shouldnt even hold that case, and have no business

Obviously by the time I reacted he would be off my lawn, I think I would be justified in following him down the road and gunning him down for trespassing though.

No, if you invite me over for the next 4th of July I'll bring my drones and we can take turns blowing them out of the sky.

>i mean that there oging ot have a case over the morality of some guys drug use and fuck up your entire fuckig life over it
It boils my blood to think of all the nonviolent people whose lives are ruined when some WICKED sociopathic political nutjobs decide to throw them in a cage for years because they felt like it.

Drug use isn't very healthy but fuck off if anyone thinks they're justified in throwing people in cages for doing something that only affects themselves.

If it's a road that you paid for because the lazy local government refused to work on it, even more justified.

Absolute bullshit.

If they would do that of their own volition to meet any needs but their own immediate requirements, all of the roads that the government built would have already existed.

Ancap is a meme that collapses the moment that real-world logistics are introduced.

>arguments are bad

It's not because they "felt like it" it's because in order to keep their positions they have to make decisions that are aligned with their constituents
(if they are an elected judge) or with the institution that appointed them.

>absolute
No. Most roads in the United States had been funded by private entities until the mid 19th century. Most were turnpikes.

Doubt that would happen

No, it's because they felt like it. Police officers and judges exercise complete discretion - if they want to ignore a case they absolutely can.

HOLY SHIT ANCAPS BTFO PERMANENTLY LMOA

Just because there's no state with a monopoly on violence doesn't mean that a group of people can't form a contract between themselves where they voluntarily pitch in to pay a private contractor to build the road.

Hope your having fun with this shitshow.

They can but not without consequences.

>not without consequences
No - basically all cops can without any consequences. Most cops are alone when they witness something that state law sanctions, and no one would be the wiser if they ignored it.
Judges can ignore things entirely and no one but state prosecutors or claimants would know it even happened - no one pays any attention to petty non-violent "offenses".
Try going to a county court some time during a petty drug offense case - you'll hardly see a soul, and the souls that are there don't give a damn about anything unless they the victim (of the state) or family of the victim.

>ancaps still don’t have an objective definition of when violence is justified when someone crosses your property line

I'm close to an ancap, and I do.

Yeah, that they can shoot them.

At least you stick to some principles.

You had purchased an authorization to use the street you were walking on. If you want to be able to jump onto the property of anyone on either side of that road, you need to speak to that person yourself and schedule a transaction in advance to allow you permission on that property, or you are in violation of the NAP. You should hope that the property owner in question is not the kind to shoot first and address grievances later - perhaps you can pay for the damage with a lump sum or some indentured servitude.

Snek is eternal

>streets
>cars
>lolbertarian utopia
Top kek

No, I'm actually a pacifist, so my principle is never.
It doesn't get less philosophically fuzzy than that.

It's actually making a comeback, from what I've seen.

it wasnt that he ruined their life.

he fucking totalyu wrecked it. felonies they got charged with, not a misdeamenor paraphanelia. he doestn have no evidence, its the definition of paraphanelia. there is no lab tests,
and you kow fuck them. they want to sit in their court and act all high and mighty, over paraphenelia. then broadcast it to the big city, insult htem and beg the question for you guys to fund them more federal funds. they live off tha more than ANY THING. they just repaved the highway 4 lanes one is a training wheel lane. and i seen bums begging serves fucking stupid fucks right.
hope they get run over with bums, build big highways. and the money goes to the same family i KNOW takes a hawaii vacation every year. The road didnt need paved either like not even a pothole. but every time hthey get achnace these fuckers who are rich need to do the city pavign jobs they have had for decades

anyway they didnt just give these people misdeamenors they fucked their life up, with prison time. took their kids. in kentucky guess what he;ll have to do for the rest of their lives now to NOW defend their family. suck dick, since kentucky bans any felony for life on havign guns.
youtube.com/watch?v=hQx76WemmQg
drug runners

>and all of it was none of their business

>these fuckers who are rich need to do the city pavign jobs they have had for decades
That's what happens when you have a monopoly that isn't price sensitive taking everyone's money. They dole out favors with no regard for efficiency because there are no consequences for poor management - the tax money comes to them regardless.

this