Force and Violence and Property
Posted by j_IR1776wg 9 years, 2 months ago to Philosophy
In the 1960's, the Left, in their relentless pursuit to achieve Marx's goal of no private property created a legal concept which divided Force and Violence into separate categories of crime. The example most used to define this separation was as follows:
A man (A) comes home from work to find another man (B) in his living room eating his (A) food and watching his (A) TV. They contended that (B) had committed an act of Force which while a crime was not really that bad. They asserted that violence against property was a lesser evil than violence against humans as if persons and their property were conceptually separable.
Hence, if the response of (A) was to pick up (B) by the scruff of his neck and throw him out of the front door, they contended, would be an act of violence worthy of the arrest and prosecution of (A). They justified this concept by placing the onus on the homeowner (A) to determine whether the intruder (B) had a clear intent to finish eating and leave or to escalate this act of Force against him (A) and his property to the level of Violence.
Since it is impossible for the home owner (A) to determine what the intruder's (B) intent and next move would be, the Left limited the home owner's (A) response to calling the police and/or fleeing his home. While a radical notion back then, it is widely accepted today even by some who advocate for individual rights.
By this cleavage between Force and Violence, the Leftists have cleverly obfuscated Ayn Rand's contention in John Galt's speech that "no man may initiate—do you hear me? no man may start—the use of physical force against others."
By this cleavage between Force and Violence, the Leftists have cleverly disposed of the concept that a man's home is his castle and that he has an absolute right to defend his property by any means he deems necessary including the killing of the intruder.
By this cleavage between Force and Violence, the Leftists have inched closer to Marx's dream that:
”...The distinguishing feature of communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few."
"In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property...".
Today the taking of property by governments local, state and federal has reached a level in America that indicates Marx's vision is close to being fully implemented and is likely irreversible.
A man (A) comes home from work to find another man (B) in his living room eating his (A) food and watching his (A) TV. They contended that (B) had committed an act of Force which while a crime was not really that bad. They asserted that violence against property was a lesser evil than violence against humans as if persons and their property were conceptually separable.
Hence, if the response of (A) was to pick up (B) by the scruff of his neck and throw him out of the front door, they contended, would be an act of violence worthy of the arrest and prosecution of (A). They justified this concept by placing the onus on the homeowner (A) to determine whether the intruder (B) had a clear intent to finish eating and leave or to escalate this act of Force against him (A) and his property to the level of Violence.
Since it is impossible for the home owner (A) to determine what the intruder's (B) intent and next move would be, the Left limited the home owner's (A) response to calling the police and/or fleeing his home. While a radical notion back then, it is widely accepted today even by some who advocate for individual rights.
By this cleavage between Force and Violence, the Leftists have cleverly obfuscated Ayn Rand's contention in John Galt's speech that "no man may initiate—do you hear me? no man may start—the use of physical force against others."
By this cleavage between Force and Violence, the Leftists have cleverly disposed of the concept that a man's home is his castle and that he has an absolute right to defend his property by any means he deems necessary including the killing of the intruder.
By this cleavage between Force and Violence, the Leftists have inched closer to Marx's dream that:
”...The distinguishing feature of communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few."
"In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property...".
Today the taking of property by governments local, state and federal has reached a level in America that indicates Marx's vision is close to being fully implemented and is likely irreversible.
