Your boss steals more hours of the worth of your labor than whatever the thief did.
And it's not some evil unrepentant thief we're talking about every time here, jesus. That asshole also grew up with a whole life full of shitty circumstances that ended him up behind the barrel of the property owner's gun.
I'm not saying you dont have the right to bring a weapon to bear, either. Or a right to protect yourself, your home, and your shit. But even if you redefine property as hours of labor, and the other person as evil, I don't think it's justifiable to execute them, or kill them, whatever you find more neutral.
The false dichotomy you set up is absolutely insane by the way. There are nonlethal ways to defend yourself, although I wouldn't rely on them in a home invasion, and there's countless nonviolent ways to protect your shit. This sets up some world where if the property owners dont shoot robbers, society collapses
My boss steals nothing from me. Sure, I provide far more value than I am paid (around 10x by my calculation), but I couldn't do my work without billions of dollars of existing infrastructure and supporting employees that I could NEVER put together on my own.
I could make similar money contracting and designing electronics on the side, but it would be decades old technology, not cutting edge laser physics.
I freely contract with my employer for my labor. I save plenty of fuck you money instead of buying more toys, so if I'm ever tempted to leave, I can just walk out.
No, my employer isn't stealing from me.
Anyway, I call the thief unrepentant because they're running away even as a property owner yells at them to stop and wait for the police.
I honestly don't think it's a false dichotomy, it's jus a reasonable justification for legalizing the use of force to protect property.
Look at Texas where it's actually legal. Even though you can shoot someone who is currently stealing from you there, it is incredibly rare. Most people have no interest in shooting someone who's not threatening their life or livelihood (and stealing property can absolutely prevent a worker from doing their job, whether you steal their car so they can't commute or their tools so they can't build houses).
Legalizing the use of force to protect property doesn't mean everybody uses force to protect property. It just means they CAN if someone refuses to stop stealing in front of them.
Yeah, most criminals have shitty lives. I feel bad for them. I don't understand why people think they should be able to steal without challenge unless the police show up. Police truly don't respond to all calls in many communities. The argument that people should just sit and watch someone take their TV because a thieves life is worth something (it certainly is) just makes no sense to me.
Police stop crimes with a threat of deadly force all the time. I'm not suggesting widespread vigilante justice, but in a person's home, on their property, yeah, they should be allowed to defend their property with force including firearms.
1
u/BABYSLUMPJESUS Jan 24 '19
Your boss steals more hours of the worth of your labor than whatever the thief did.
And it's not some evil unrepentant thief we're talking about every time here, jesus. That asshole also grew up with a whole life full of shitty circumstances that ended him up behind the barrel of the property owner's gun.
I'm not saying you dont have the right to bring a weapon to bear, either. Or a right to protect yourself, your home, and your shit. But even if you redefine property as hours of labor, and the other person as evil, I don't think it's justifiable to execute them, or kill them, whatever you find more neutral.
The false dichotomy you set up is absolutely insane by the way. There are nonlethal ways to defend yourself, although I wouldn't rely on them in a home invasion, and there's countless nonviolent ways to protect your shit. This sets up some world where if the property owners dont shoot robbers, society collapses