To: secretagent
I don't agree that defense against all threats should be solely left to juries to decide. The benefit of having laws regarding threats are as important as having laws against other crimes. People should know what their rights are, as well as the limits of those rights.
16 posted on
01/14/2005 3:30:33 PM PST by
jackbob
To: jackbob
freepatriot32 wrote:
"My rights extend only to the point where they infringe on your rights.
So, for example, your right to swing your fist ends just before you make contact with my nose. If you violate my nose rights, I'll feel free to respond in kind."
Speaking only to the given example, that is not good enough for me.
Prudence, a much written about legal concept, would suggest otherwise.
Of course I recognize that 'prudence' is not a libertarian concept, as it is impossible to objectively ascertain its exact limitations. That to me is the number one dilemma or flaw in the libertarian philosophy. There must be room for some prudence.
I therefore state that your right to swing your fist ends just before your movement would necessitate a prudent person from taking immediate action in self defense.
A threat of imminent physical harm to the person of an individual (not property), is an initiation of force.
4 jackbob
Yes indeed, threats can be an initiation of force.
But that is not a dilemma or flaw in libertarian philosophy.
Constitutional law limits libertarian philosophy just as it limits conservative philosophy.
There is room for 'prudence' in both.
18 posted on
01/14/2005 5:01:38 PM PST by
jonestown
( Tolerance for intolerance is not tolerance at all.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson