Texas: Libertarian Utopia?
http://jezebel.com/how-an-insane-texas-law-made-it-legal-for-a-man-to-kill-511717880
Killing a person to retrieve $150 (that you paid them for services rendered) is perfectly legal, because property is the only right that matters.
Libertarians support the woman being able to enter a legal contract such that there would never have been any "assumptions" about sexual services and would have given her legal recourse should the john have not paid.
It seems like the real issue is the court's definition of "theft" rather than property rights, and a Libertarian wouldn't define it that way, as the woman upheld her end of the contract.
Originally posted by Darth Jello
Isn't that one of the credos of reactionary libertarianism/objectivism? Everything should be legal as long as a financial transaction is involved?
no
not when talking about this specific case, and not when talking about theory or philosophy in general. Libertarians/Objectivists do not support assault, even for money.
Re: Texas: Libertarian Utopia?
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
http://jezebel.com/how-an-insane-texas-law-made-it-legal-for-a-man-to-kill-511717880Killing a person to retrieve $150 (that you paid them for services rendered) is perfectly legal, because property is the only right that matters.
Jezebel is one of the most anti-male sites you'll ever run across on the internet. Definitely not something you'd want to every quote or cite in a serious discussion.
There are obvious details missing from that "journalist's" telling of the story.
Finding a more professional source, Gilbert is hardly this cold, murderous, sexist bastard that Jezebel painted him:
"I've been in a mental prison the past four years of my life. I have nightmares. If I see guns on TV where people are getting killed, I change the channel."
"Gilbert testified earlier Tuesday that he had found Frago's escort ad on Craigslist and believed sex was included in her $150 fee. But instead, Frago walked around his apartment and after about 20 minutes left, saying she had to give the money to her driver, he said [Have you ever seen a sex-ad on Craigslist (lol, they are in every section, pretty much...even in the simple "furniture" ads)? Most likely, the ad was cited as evidence during the trial (that's how digital forensics work, in court) and there must have been no doubt that sex was included in the $150 fee or order for this to have flown in court].
That driver, the defense contended, was Frago's pimp and her partner in the theft scheme."
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Jury-acquits-escort-shooter-4581027.php
Seems like there was enough evidence that they were running a theft scheme on fat saps wanting sex, through Craig's list that the jury bought it and he was acquitted.
HOWEVER, he's still a sexist bastard, in my opinion. When she tried to flee with his money, he could have easily aimed for her legs without a moment's hesitation. He clearly was enraged and thought little of her life if he aimed for her head. That's some cold, murdering, intent, right there. I mean, damn!
I could be wrong and he just really really sucked at aiming and his shot was near her head by pure chance....but unlikely.
Originally posted by Oliver North
Libertarians support the woman being able to enter a legal contract such that there would never have been any "assumptions" about sexual services and would have given her legal recourse should the john have not paid.It seems like the real issue is the court's definition of "theft" rather than property rights, and a Libertarian wouldn't define it that way, as the woman upheld her end of the contract.
no
not when talking about this specific case, and not when talking about theory or philosophy in general. Libertarians/Objectivists do not support assault, even for money.
How dare you be objective about libertarian political philosophy.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Shooting someone to protect your property, especially if its 150$, should be illegal, and someone doing it should face consequences.That's just my libertarian opinion though, I guess.
I guess we disagree, then. I think using force to protect your property should not be illegal. Now if it's lethal force we're talking about... that's, admittedly, far trickier.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Shooting someone to protect your property, especially if its 150$, should be illegal, and someone doing it should face consequences.That's just my libertarian opinion though, I guess.
I agree. Free anal should have been the consequence for her thievery rather than "free bullets to you neck."
Originally posted by dadudemon
I agree. Free anal should have been the consequence for her thievery rather than "free bullets to you neck."
...I know what you meant to say, just pointing out why choosing your words carefully is important.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
So, no using guns to recover property, but rape is a just form of retribution...
"rape is just free sex! WEEE!"
That is not quite right, now is it? That's the difference between complimentary mints and just stealing the mints.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
...I know what you meant to say, just pointing out why choosing your words carefully is important.
I agree: you should have realized "free" implies a gratis offer from the "seller" rather than stealing the services known as "anal rape."
Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
Based on this precedent, this section of the Texas Penal code means:
Not getting what you feel is the good or service you paid for at what is legally defined as a "nighttime robbery". Nighttime permits you to commit homicide without consequence. Good to keep in mind if you don't feel like paying your employees working the night shift or if the pizza you ordered at 6:00 pm doesn't arrive until 7:45.
Since this also doesn't take into account the legality of the transaction, this also means that if you're a dealer, you HAVE to sell drugs when the sun sets.
Originally posted by Darth Jello
Based on this precedent, this section of the Texas Penal code means:
Not getting what you feel is the good or service you paid for at what is legally defined as a "nighttime robbery". Nighttime permits you to commit homicide without consequence.
I'd word that differently to avoid being wrong. It permits you to commit homicide without criminal repercussions (meaning, you won't be convicted as long as it can be proven it was a nighttime robbery on your property).
Originally posted by Darth Jello
Good to keep in mind if you don't feel like paying your employees working the night shift or if the pizza you ordered at 6:00 pm doesn't arrive until 7:45.
You know both of these examples fail, right? It would be if you ordered and paid for the pizzas and the delivery man came to your house with the pizzas - and the agreement from the order clearly indicated that those pizzas would be yours - walked around your house for 20 minutes with your pizzas, and walked away with them in hand.
Originally posted by Darth Jello
Since this also doesn't take into account the legality of the transaction, this also means that if you're a dealer, you HAVE to sell drugs when the sun sets.
lol!
Originally posted by dadudemon
"rape is just free sex! WEEE!"That is not quite right, now is it? That's the difference between complimentary mints and just stealing the mints.
I agree: you should have realized "free" implies a gratis offer from the "seller" rather than stealing the services known as "anal rape."
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Mints that you steal are free mints, you fool.
That's not free, that's specifically stealing. Just because you stole something does not mean that something was free, you criminal.
It, by definition, cannot be free because stealing is governed by law and stealing has limitations specifically because the "seller" did not say or advertise it was free. You are limited in other ways, as well, because you cannot just openly steal something in front of customers, in front of cameras, in front of security, place it in your pocket without paying first, and so forth. So how is stealing mints "free" again?
Originally posted by dadudemon
That's not free, that's specifically stealing. Just because you stole something does not mean that something was free, you criminal.It, by definition, cannot be free because stealing is governed by law and stealing has limitations specifically because the "seller" did not say or advertise it was free. You are limited in other ways, as well, because you cannot just openly steal something in front of customers, in front of cameras, in front of security, place it in your pocket without paying first, and so forth. So how is stealing mints "free" again?