Does one have the natural right to defend oneself with deadly force if necessary?

[gorfle]

Question:

Do you believe one has the natural right to defend oneself with deadly force if necessary?

[I work for workers]

1. Yes. nt

[fenriswolf]

2. if someone is going to violate my things or my family or my person

I will maim, if aggression continues then its either you or them.

[zanne]

4. "Violate my things"

Are your "things" more valuable than a person's life? (And please answer the question directly.)

[fenriswolf]

10. *god i love hypothetical questions

no a human life is not more important then material objects to me. I will not let someone steal from me. If they are caught they will be told to leave, if they don't leave then I will have to be taken care of since they are caught so then it turns to self defense.

[MindPilot]

I'll take the liberty to answer...yes.

If I catch someone stealing my stuff, that person is a thief and I am the victim. At that moment and in that context, the value of my life far outweighs the value of theirs.

I would of course give the thief every opportunity to lie down and wait for the police, but I certainly wouldn't allow them to walk away with my stuff.

[L1A1Rocker]

15. Yep

Absolutly.

[Jack_DeLeon]

25. Yes...

For me to have things I have to give up part of my life to work for said things.

The time I spend working is time I will never get back, I will never have that time again to spend with my family or loved ones or do the things I would have prefered to do. When someone steals from another person they are essentially stealing a part of thier life.

Perhaps you dont value your time, but I value mine since it is something I will never get more of.

[lastout]

34. "If they are willing to die for my "things" then I am too "

Does that answer directly enough?

[sabre73]

47. Sometimes they are.

If they are the "things" that offer security to my children then yes. They are far more valuable then some lowlife's miserable existence! The "someone" in question does not give a rip for your life or safety so why should I be more concerned for them than my own family?

You can judge me all you want for it too but I will promise you one thing. If I caught someone doing the same to you and your family I would not hesitate to pull you out of harms way by eliminating the threat.

[zanne]

3. Oh please--You're preaching to the choir.

A better question would be "Do you believe one has the natural right to defend one's property without asking questions first"? I think that's what you're getting at.

[SecularNATION]

12. Not a better question..

..because of the "without asking questions first" clause. I doubt you will find many people who will say it's OK to shoot a thief right off the bat. However, say, you live in the country and come home to find two men loading a truck with your stuff. You retrieve your weapon from your car and proceed to ask the gentlemen what they are doing. You tell them to stop. You tell them you are calling the law. They either refuse, or attempt to escape with your things. Should you be able to use deadly force to stop them. I say, yes. If you say no, why? Should the victim just sit and watch them drive off, hoping the cops will catch them later?

[SecularNATION]

13. Before someone says it..

..I know in this scenario the victim could possibly shoot the tires out or disable the engine, etc. But, if for some reason he couldn't, should he then be able to disable the driver by shooting him? Remember, the homeowner would be shooting to stop, not to kill.

[gorfle]

17. That's not it at all, zanne....

A better question would be "Do you believe one has the natural right to defend one's property without asking questions first"? I think that's what you're getting at.

No, actually I was not thinking about defense of property at all.

In another thread, someone said:

I'm not the one claiming there is a NATURAL right to own a gun that lives beyond the laws of man making it unworthy of questioning.

To which I asked, Do you believe there is a NATURAL right to defend oneself using deadly force if necessary? and did not receive a response.

My question is exactly what it asks. Whatever justifies "if necessary" is not really the point, and I'll leave that up to each reader. The point is, if it is necessary to defend yourself with deadly force, is it a NATURAL right to do so?

[mvccd1000]

31. Start another topic if you think that is the question to ask.

The question here is, do you think people have the right to self-defense.

I do.

[frogcycle]

5. unquestionably

if you disregard all artificial societal norms, laws, etc. and presume the "law of the jungle," well hell yes. You said "natural right." Of COURSE one does, just as a horse has the right to kick the living shit out of a cougar attacking it or a member of its herd.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

6. I think it is a natural instinct

If someone is trying to kill you, gets you in a choke hold, you are going to do anything and everything to get out of it, right?

[Tejas]

23. Don't be so sure

about that, there are those that post here that think an alternative should always be considered, facts weighed, mulled over, pros and cons of resultant litigation etc.

I guess they figure that by the time they make up their mind on what to do about the situation their attacker will tire and let go.

:sarcasm:

[shireen]

7. hell yes!

If the asshole is out to kill me or someone else, yes, I won't hesitate to use deadly force at all. I detest the idea of killing another human being and will go thru all reasonable lengths possible to avoid it. For instance, if I ever encountered a burglar in my home, and had the opportunity to warn him/her that I have a gun and he/she better leave now, the burglar will have a choice. If the creep leaves, even while carrying my stuff away, I won't shoot but will call the police after he/she has left. But if the creep pulls out a gun or lunges towards me with a knife, I will not hesitate to shoot.

[Bonobo]

8. Yes.

What's yer point?

[Iktomiwicasa]

9. Yes, nt

[bluerum]

11. I saw a squirrel defending it's nest from another squirrel this morning. He chased

the other squirrel away.

The "invader" squirrel ran away. I didn't see a weapon of any sort - except maybe some claws and teeth.

I realize that humans are not squirrels, but it is interesting that some people can juxtapose the justifiable need to defends ones property with killing someone on the spot.

[Sanctified]

26. Interesting story.

I remember about a year ago my dog ate a squirrel in my backyard, my wife was pretty upset over the entire ordeal because in her mind it was a female squirrel getting food for her children. In some ways it's too bad that the squirrel just could not run my dog off or did not have anything to act as an equalizer.

[bluerum]

28. Interesting story as well - highlights the fact that we inherit an animal nature similar to

what dogs and other territorial creatures have. This instinct still serves a purpose for humans.

On the other hand humans have the gifts of abstract thought, compassion and deep ranges of emotion and intellect that other animals do not appear to have. These are tools that people, in the course of their lives, learn to use to relate to the world around them, with varying degrees of success.

[sabre73]

44. True. But you forget....

Humans also have the ability to ignore said gifts of abstract thought and compassion and emotion so they can get whatever they want from whom ever they want and damn those who stand in their way.

Please don't mistake your opinion of the higher intellect to be a mandate on how ALL humans act. If that were the case there would be no need for the Police, Rape crisis centers, or Jenny Craig.

Humans are beyond figuring out. Just when you think they should do "this and that" because it makes sense they don't.

[jody]

14. A better question is "do you believe others have the natural right to take your life or property?"

gorfle it would be helpful if you answered that simple question.

[gorfle]

18. The answer is no...

Clearly other people do not have the natural right to take my life or property.

[jody]

19. Then how do you propose to defend your life and property given that SCOTUS says government is not

obligated to protect you unless you are in custody?

Self-defense is your personal problem! :shrug:

[gorfle]

20. Easy!

I shoot 'em! :)

[jody]

22. That's my answer also. Gun control means, take a deep breath, align the sights, squeeze the trigger

:toast:

[bluerum]

29. I think that your premise is flawed. You presume that we can "own" things.

Do I in fact own the land because I have a deed and some paperwork that says so? Is that paperwork in fact what makes it mine? If that is all there is to it, people can print up paperwork that says that they own anything that they want.

And if you do buy into the concept of ownership, how does that affect your relationship to those who don't own anything, but still have a need to survive? In other words, if you claim to own everything, and I have nothing, do I have a right to take something from you in order to live?

on edit: subject typos,,,

[jody]

30. You assert “premise is flawed” but the right to own property is settled under our constitution for

all adults. States have different laws for minors, e.g. title of automobiles.

Your use of “flawed” is incorrect where typical definitions include the following.
1. An imperfection, often concealed, that impairs soundness:
2. A defect or shortcoming in something intangible:
3. A defect in a legal document that can render it invalid.

In fact the earliest sovereign states before they ratified the Constitution dealt with the right to own property and Pennsylvania and Vermont said:

That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable (or unalienable) rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

You can discuss the philosophical basis for property rights but the truth is that under state constitutions the right of men and now women to own property is a settled issue. That’s a major leap from other governments where rulers owned all property.

You can also argue whether a person owns a particular item of property. Such arguments keep our courts busy but the issue is “who” owns an item of property not whether a man or woman or the state “can” own property.

In 1886 the Supreme Court inSanta Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company granted corporations the same rights as living persons under the Fourteenth Amendment and one of those rights was to own property.

I’m neither a constitutional scholar nor an attorney so I’m sure some DUer will clarify any misstatement I made above.

Perhaps you meant that your opinion was different from the accepted legal meaning in the U.S. and that’s OK.

[bluerum]

33. Well yes. Ownership is derived from paperwork - which is what the constitution is.

It is also claims to be a type of moral and philosophical framework.

So, the constitution provides for killing other people/defending your property with deadly force. But I think that the original question was asked in a different context, was it not?

Clearly the constitution provides a "legal" basis for defending yourself. But I don't think that was what you were asking. Why would you have asked the question if you are so deeply knowledgeable of the topic?

[jody]

36. I don't claim I'm "deeply knowledgeable of the topic" but I have read numerous books and articles on

the source of rights. I'm ever conscious of the saying "A little Learning is a dang'rous Thing; Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian Spring" -- all I've done is take a few sips. :shrug:

I haven't found a consensus on the source of rights among my readings and I've challenged several friends with Ph.D.s in philosophy from top universities to start with a blank sheet and derive a logical structure for what I and perhaps you call morality.

My interpretation of the efforts of those with religious leanings is a divine being gave us rights, e.g. ten commandments, and others suggest that morality is the rules evolved by society over the ages as we found ways to survive as a group. I must admit the latter idea is very appealing to me.

I concluded that when one begins to list rights, the right of self-defense is often the most basic right and defense of property is further down the list.

I don't claim the above has a solid philosophical basis, it's just my personal conclusion reached after reading the works of philosophers and constitutional scholars.

I would like to read what conclusions you've reached on the source of rights.

As an afterthought, the authors of Pennsylvania and Vermont's first constitutions in 1776 and 1777 must have discussed the source of rights because they chose adjectives very carefully by identifying rights as "natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable rights".

IMO, each adjective was carefully chosen and they have an obvious relationship to the Declaration of Independence that said "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

IMO, our Declaration and PA and VT's constitutions drew a line in the sand by saying rights are not given by monarchs but each human has natural, inherent rights and those rights are so basic they can never be given away by using the adjective inalienable/unalienable.

That idea is expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that says:

Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Article 17.
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property

Have a great day, :hi:

[bluerum]

37. So you ask a question and have a your answers in hand? I say again,

the constitution and countless other documents created by men provide legal frameworks to support defending your property. This much is quite clear. Why, even the bible, holy book such that it is, suggests that certain people deserve to be killed.

But the concept of ownership is a canard. Yes yes, the piece of paper says I own it and that I have inalienable rights to own it. But what does that really mean? Does that mean my property becomes part of me? Or does part of me come to inhabit my property? Is it mine because I do what I want to/with it? Is this idea of ownership something that I so identify with that I will kill someone who threatens my ownership of something? At one time, slaves were "owned". People really believed this. They had the legal documents to prove it too. How does one person own another person?

Anyway, I take it that your original question was really asking - "If you are presented with the opportunity to kill a man within a legal framework, would you do so?"

Ownership of property is a false premise. The fundamental question is one of morality, ethics and humanity. Not whether or not one can own property.

Personally, I do not think morality can be reduced to logic. Morality means different things in different places at different times - which is what your original question hints at. Ownership and property are simply the vehicles that lead you to the moral dilemma.

Another moral dilemma: A man points a gun to your head, hands you a gun with one bullet, and gives you 5 seconds to kill someone seated before you. How much legal/ethical/moral thought do you put into your decision under the circumstances?

You can add a little spice this by seating two people in front of you - man and woman, or black and white, gay and hetero, democrat and republican, thief and property owner - you pick em. You have 5 seconds to kill one of the pair or else be killed yourself. How do you make your decision? Do ethics or morals even come into play?

Certainly self defense and survival are universally accepted behaviors. On the other hand, people give their lives so that others may live. Joseph Campbell speaks eloquently of this and tries to explain why this happens. It is not a simple thing, to understand why one person would sacrifice everything for someone else, but it happens. Personally, I think to gives one life to save someone is many times more difficult than taking someones life.

[jody]

38. You assert "If you are presented with the opportunity to kill a man within a legal framework,

would you do so?"

The OP question is "Do you believe one has the natural right to defend oneself with deadly force if necessary?"

You create a straw man by not so cleverly changing the OP question from "natural right to defend oneself" to "opportunity to kill a man".

I see we disagree and after our exchanges I find you have nothing new to offer for me.

Have a great day and goodbye. :hi:

[bluerum]

43. I see. Don't let the door you on the way out then.

BTW - nice cut'n paste work in these exchanges!

[wash72]

45. bluerum

since you don't own any property, do you mind if I stop by and take the things you purchased?

[Indy Lurker]

46. I would never try to kill anyone

I would never try to kill anyone.


if they didn't respond to verbal commands, I would shoot someone who was trying to do great bodily harm to another, and I would shoot for the center of mass until they were stopped.


It may be a subtle distinction, but it's an important distinction.


As to your moral dilemma, I simply couldn't shoot an innocent person. I'd rather try and stop the criminal with my one bullet.

[Hangingon]

16. Yes - absolutely nt

[east texas lib]

21. Well..

Only if you like livin'.:evilgrin:

[Jack_DeLeon]

24. Hells Yeah.

My life and the lives of the people I care about > the lives of anyone trying to do us harm.

Given that I will act appropriately and do the rational thing.

[kansas city]

27. If you are a true Liberal?

If you are a true Modern Progressive Liberal in your political views, I would say no. If you chose to claim the above title, you can't in good conscience defend yourself against an aggressor.

A Liberal of the 1940s or earlier, would have no problem with self defense. Look at President Franklin D. Roosevelt and General George S. Patton.

[SteveM]

35. I get your distinction with "liberalism." How was Patton a liberal?

I think Gandhi understood more about non-violence than most of the crude pacifists I hear today:

"It was manly enough to defend one's property, honour or religion at the point of the sword. It was manlier and nobler to defend them without seeking to injure the wrong-doer. But it was unmanly, unnatural and dishonourable to forsake the post of duty and, in order to save one's skin, to leave property, honour or religion to the mercy of the wrong-doer." -- An Autobiography or the story of my experiments with Truth, M.K. Gandhi, Navajivan Publishing House, Ahmedabad, August, 1948 edition.

Gandhi seems to have a continuum stretching from "cowardice" through "manly" self-defense through violence, and the most desireable state of ahimsa, defense without injury to the attacker. Note how Gandhi includes property as desireable for defense, and note how he considers forsaking "...the post of duty and, in order to save one's skin to leave property <, etc.>..." as "unnatural."

A very tough and practical man, Gandhi.

[Recursion]

40. Oh not this "classical liberal" BS again

If you are a true Modern Progressive Liberal in your political views, I would say no.

Tell it to Rob Williams, H. Rap Brown, or Malcolm X.

[mvccd1000]

32. We have the natural right to defend ourselves with the amount of force needed to stop the threat.

No reason for more than that, no reason for less than that.

[Plague]

39. Yes, especially since no law can prevent it...

I'd say that most people have the natural capacity to act violently, regardless of the situation. Acting to defend yourself, or to harm someone else isn't really something that can be taken away in a normal situation. So, in that respect, barring the individual's views about how they should act in any given situation I believe...Yes, people have a natural right to defend themselves with deadly force. They've been doing it pretty much since the dawn of humanity.

In regards to the law, it can only take affect after the fact. You can't un-kill someone, only punish someone who doesn't follow the rules afterwards. So, whether or not the law says it's okay, people will still be using deadly force in self defense.

[singforsam]

41. Yes

Of course we have the right to defend ourselves with deadly force if the cause is just. If someone intends to rob or hurt me in my own home they should expect to be met with as much force as necessary.

[avenger64]

42. Of course, but ...

... God I hope it never comes to that.

[Critters2]

48. I don't believe in "natural rights". I believe in social ethics.

Animals have natural rights. Humans have reason and the ability to weigh the well-being of the community, among other things.

I'm a religious pacifist. I believe it is wrong to take another's life. Period.

Flame away.