At 12:10 AM 3/1/00 -0500, Bill Stewart wrote:
>At 11:27 PM 02/26/2000 -0500, Petro wrote:
> > Theft of property *is* the initiation of force.
>
>Theft of property is initiation of bad behavior, but not necessarily force.
>Robbery of property is initiation of force ("yer money or yer life",
> or even armed burglary of an occupied residence.)
>Using force to keep stolen property is initiation of force.
>But sneak thievery of property isn't force, it's just theft.
>It's obviously wrong, but when my fellow Libertarians claim
>it's force, they're weaselwording to evade the problem that the
>Non-Aggression Principle doesn't let them initiate force in response.
Bill,
The Common Law judges had to deal with this one and did a reasonable
job. Let's drift back to Law One almost the first day of Criminal Law
getting on 30 years ago...
Theft - "The taking and asportation of the personal property of another
with intent to permanently deprive him of same."
Asportation=carrying off.
Robbery - "Theft from the person accomplished by threat of force"
You can use deadly force in the case of Robbery and also in that subspecies
of theft covered by Burglary (in those jurisdictions that let you use it at
all).
Burglary - "The breaking and entering of the dwelling house of another in
the night time with intent to commit a felony therein." [The original CL
definition limited burglary to "dwelling house" and "night".] Since a
burglary was considered an inherently dangerous act in itself, you could
use deadly force.
DCF
----
"They believe that the Government is the problem and that what everyone
needs is to be told, 'You're on your own; go out there into the tender
mercies of the global economy; have a great time in cyberspace, and we'll
get out of your way.'" -- William Jefferson Blythe Clinton in a speech to
the AFSCME in Chicago June 21, 1996.
