Self-defence and property-defence laws

Propose and review new legislative variables for the game.

Self-defence and property-defence laws

Postby Lizard250 » Mon Aug 10, 2015 6:26 pm

Name of the Law/Policy: Use of force in self-defence
Law/Policy Category: Justice

Options:
1. One may use force in self-defence only if it is reasonable and proportionate to the attack.
2. One may use force in self-defence only if it is reasonable and proportionate to the attack, but the use of "excessive" force is permitted in exceptional cases.
3. One may use force in self-defence only if it is reasonable.
4. There are no limits on how much force one may use against an aggressor.
5. Local governments decide on how much force one may use against an aggressor.

Effects:
1. Civil Rights: strong increase in restrictive.
2. Civil Rights: increase in restrictive.
3. Civil Rights: increase in permissive.
4. Civil Rights: strong increase in permissive.
5. Devolution: strong increase in devolution.

Comments:
1. UK style self-defence laws.
2. Swedish style self-defence laws.
3. Czech style self-defence laws.
4. Complete absence of restrictions, codified or uncodified.
5. US style self-defence laws.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Name of the Law/Policy: Use of force in defence of property
Law/Policy Category: Justice

Options:
1. One may not use force to defend one's property.
2. One may only use non-lethal force to defend one's property.
3. One may only use non-lethal force to defend one's property, but the use lethal-force is permitted in exceptional cases.
4. There are no limits on how much force one may use to defend one's property.
5. Local governments decide on how one may defend one's property.

Effects:
1. Civil Rights: strong increase in restrictive.
2. Civil Rights: increase in restrictive.
3. Civil Rights: increase in permissive.
4. Civil Rights: strong increase in permissive.
5. Devolution: strong increase in devolution.

Comments:
1. UK style property-defence laws.
2. Swedish style property-defence laws.
3. Turkish style property-defence laws.
4. Complete absence of restrictions, codified or uncodified.
5. US style property-defence laws.
Last edited by Lizard250 on Sun Oct 04, 2015 10:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Lizard250
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2015 7:18 pm

Re: Self-defence and property-defence laws

Postby Darkylightytwo » Wed Aug 12, 2015 2:35 pm

Please, tell me how it is a civil right to use guns like that and kill people. Especially when your life is not threatened.
Darkylightytwo
 
Posts: 803
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2014 6:27 am

Re: Self-defence and property-defence laws

Postby Lizard250 » Wed Aug 12, 2015 5:02 pm

Darkylightytwo wrote:Please, tell me how it is a civil right to use guns like that and kill people. Especially when your life is not threatened.


I'm starting to get the impression that half of this forum's members are trolls and flamebaiters...

1. Preserving one's life is a fundamental human right.

2. Forcing others to practice pacifism (as you want to do) is a severe violation of the fundamental human right to freedom of conscience.

3. In a civilized society, the weak have a civil right to be equal to the strong.
Lizard250
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2015 7:18 pm

Re: Self-defence and property-defence laws

Postby Darkylightytwo » Wed Aug 12, 2015 5:19 pm

Lizard250 wrote:
Darkylightytwo wrote:Please, tell me how it is a civil right to use guns like that and kill people. Especially when your life is not threatened.


I'm starting to get the impression that half of this forum's members are trolls and flamebaiters...

1. Preserving one's life is a fundamental human right.
no one disagree with that....

Lizard250 wrote:[
2. Forcing others to practice pacifism (as you want to do) is a severe violation of the fundamental human right to freedom of conscience.

So freedom of conscience permit to attack another guy who set foot on my property just because I want too.
And just to be sure, war is not a civil right, while state have a right to war, attacking other is certainly not a civil rights.

Lizard250 wrote:3. In a civilized society, the weak have a civil right to be equal to the strong.

Once again, not one said the opposite, but those are human rights http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Being able to use force is not a human right, while I do agree with self-defence, there are difference between murder and self-defence, for example, on a simple thief who's trying to not get seen, maybe even unarmed, that law would allow me to kill.

Which is I justify this suggestion

Name of the Law/Policy: Use of force in self-defence
Law/Policy Category: Justice

Options:
1. One may use force in self-defence only if it is reasonable and proportionate to the attack.
2. One may use force in self-defence only if it is reasonable and proportionate to the attack, but the use of "excessive" force is permitted in exceptional cases.
3. One may use force in self-defence only if it is reasonable.
4. There are no limits on how much force one may use against an aggressor.
5. Local governments decide on how much force one may use against an aggressor.

Effects:
1. Civil Rights: strong increase in restrictive.
2. Civil Rights: increase in restrictive.
3. Civil Rights: increase in permissive.
4. Government responsibilities ; Strong Increase in Small Government
5. Devolution: strong increase in devolution.
Darkylightytwo
 
Posts: 803
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2014 6:27 am

Re: Self-defence and property-defence laws

Postby Lizard250 » Wed Aug 12, 2015 6:13 pm

Darkylightytwo wrote:So freedom of conscience permit to attack another guy who set foot on my property just because I want too.


I see, there's a problem of communication here.

I meant that freedom of conscience gives individuals the right to choose how to react when threatened.

Darkylightytwo wrote:[...] attacking other is certainly not a civil rights.


I completely agree. However, I believe that a person is justified in shooting / stabbing someone who is trying to destroy / steal high-value property such as a home, as such a loss would produce significantly harmful (i.e. homelessness) and costly (I.e. combined loss of investment and cost of rebuilding) consequences on the vicim(s) / society.

Darkylightytwo wrote:Being able to use force is not a human right [...]


I strongly disagree. When threatened, a person has the right to use force against their attacker.

Darkylightytwo wrote:there are difference between murder and self-defence, for example, on a simple thief who's trying to not get seen, maybe even unarmed, that law would allow me to kill.


Does that thief have the right to take your property? What if he was stealing something irreplaceable, such as a beloved family pet? What if you were starving, and he was stealing the last of your food? What if you were in the desert, 3 walking days away from civilization and without food or water, and he was stealing your car?

Darkylightytwo wrote:Which is I justify this suggestion

Name of the Law/Policy: Use of force in self-defence
Law/Policy Category: Justice

Options:
1. One may use force in self-defence only if it is reasonable and proportionate to the attack.
2. One may use force in self-defence only if it is reasonable and proportionate to the attack, but the use of "excessive" force is permitted in exceptional cases.
3. One may use force in self-defence only if it is reasonable.
4. There are no limits on how much force one may use against an aggressor.
5. Local governments decide on how much force one may use against an aggressor.

Effects:
1. Civil Rights: strong increase in restrictive.
2. Civil Rights: increase in restrictive.
3. Civil Rights: increase in permissive.
4. Government responsibilities ; Strong Increase in Small Government
5. Devolution: strong increase in devolution.



I would be willing to compromise with the following:

Name of the Law/Policy: Use of force in self-defence
Law/Policy Category: Justice

Options:
1. One may use force in self-defence only if it is reasonable and proportionate to the attack.
2. One may use force in self-defence only if it is reasonable and proportionate to the attack, but the use of "excessive" force is permitted in exceptional cases.
3. One may use force in self-defence only if it is reasonable.
4. There are no limits on how much force one may use against an aggressor.
5. Local governments decide on how much force one may use against an aggressor.

Effects:
1. Civil Rights: strong increase in restrictive.
2. Civil Rights: increase in restrictive.
3. Civil Rights: increase in permissive.
4. Civil Rights: slight increase in permissive. Government Responsibilities: strong Increase in Small Government
5. Devolution: strong increase in devolution.
Lizard250
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2015 7:18 pm

Re: Self-defence and property-defence laws

Postby Darkylightytwo » Wed Aug 12, 2015 6:48 pm

4 the option number 4 say that people should be allowed to use force hoverer they see fit, not matter if they are threatened or not.

and your question might enter under option 3, which allow to people to force if the situation deemed it to be reasonable, while the 4 allow me to use force, even it is not justifiable by any reason,like the thief is stealing one apple I shot him with a shotgun.

MY libertarian party would certainly agree with option 4, but they don't believe in any form of civil rights, only their radical version of freedom, where one can shoot any statists on sight, because freedom.... I am certain you could agree that such act are very disturbing and does not mean freedom at all.

Only, that party should not be permissive, maybe morally, but even there.
Darkylightytwo
 
Posts: 803
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2014 6:27 am

Re: Self-defence and property-defence laws

Postby Lizard250 » Wed Sep 02, 2015 5:13 pm

Option 4 does not refer to defence of property, but to self-defence in general. You can have option 4 when it comes to self-defence, whilst making defence of property illegal.

Darkylightytwo wrote: [...] libertarian [...]they don't believe in any form of civil rights, only their radical version of freedom, where one can shoot any statists on sight, because freedom....[...]


That's anarchism, not libertarianism.
Lizard250
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2015 7:18 pm


Return to Laws

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron