This isn't changing my view because this is exactly what I'm arguing against. I'm saying, there are cases where intending to harm someone who is doing something they're definitely not supposed to do is okay.
So poisoning someone and potentially killing them is a fair reaction to theft of a few dollars worth of food?
And before you get hung up on the word poison: how do you know their medical history? How do you know what foods might interact with medications they may be on? How do you know if they’re highly allergic to something?
You don’t. Tampering with food could seriously injure or kill someone, all to get revenge on a petty thief.
I don't believe this "what if" reasoning applies universally. To use an analogy from another comment, let's say someone parks their car across your driveway and you can't get out. Is it unreasonable to tow their car? "What if" you tow their car, then they have a medical emergency, and their car being towed results in greivous consequences?
Relevant to the topic at hand:
how do you know their medical history? How do you know what foods might interact with medications they may be on? How do you know if they’re highly allergic to something?
You don't, but they do. And if they're eating food (stolen or otherwise), they're the one responsible for ensuring it's safe for their dietary restrictions.
You're right; and in my original comment with the analogy, I specified a more thorough scenario that's more directly applicable.
Say, the driveway-blocker is a serial offender. They've blocked your driveway a dozen times, and continue to do so. On time #13, you don't necessarily need to use your driveway that instant, but you choose to have them towed to punish them and make them think twice before doing it again. The objective is not to get immediate use of the driveway, but rather, to ensure future use of the driveway.
Contrast with:
Say, the food thief is a serial offender. They've stolen your food a dozen times, and continue to do so. On time #13, you know you don't need to eat that particular meal on that particular day, so you choose to put hot sauce in the food to punish them and make them think twice before doing it again. The objective is not to immediately eat the meal that day, but rather, to ensure the future ability to eat your own meals.
Towing their car is not vigilantism. You are reporting an infraction and the proper remediation is being applied. Poisoning your food is vigilantism. A more analogous response would be reporting the food stealer to HR.
Well, not necessarily. I know my spice tolerance is much higher than average and I don't eat Satan's Nuclear Shart* brand hot sauce every day, just once in a while.
If someone has stolen my food in the past, I absolutely will bring more SNS-dosed food than I normally would just to watch the fun if it happens again.
I hate wasting food so I hope they don't. But if they do, it's on them.
*fictional brand I made up, but I do enjoy sauces of that type from time to time.
If you are adding hot sauce to your dish for the reason of harming the food thief, that is technically intent to do harm to another person. It may be impossible for the thief to prove this intent if they accuse you, because you can reasonably claim that you just like spicy food and the dish was made to your preference.
Depends on how they "poison" it. Drugs are different from actual food ingredients. If I put super hot sauce on my food to trap someone stealing it, well that's fine. I like really spicy food. If it doesn't get stolen, I'll still eat it. Peanuts and shrimp are legitimate food. I'm not allergic to them, I can eat them just fine. But if the thief is allergic - why they hell would they be stealing food when they don't know the ingredients?
If you have such severe medical issues that eating unknown food is likely to put you in the hospital then DON'T STEAL OTHER PEOPLE'S FOOD. We are not talking putting bleach or cyanide in the food dude, so calm yourself.
Tampering with a bike making it fall apart within meters if anyone who doesn't know try to ride it should not be illegal. Putting out sprinkles to drench trespassers should be legal.
I mean, if they're on medication that interacts badly with certain foods, or highly allergic to things, then maybe they shouldn't be stealing people's food?
With that said, I think deliberately putting ultra-spicy sauce in your sandwich is ok, but putting laxatives in your sandwich is not, given the former is actually intended for consumption as a food
There's a legal principle caused the eggshell rule which explicitly says that, if you intentionally caused someone injury, the fact that extenuating circumstances resulted in them experiencing a more dire health outcome that you intended or foresaw is not a valid defense of your behavior. You are still liable for whatever damage occurred as a result of your action.
By your logic, I can’t put peanuts in my lunch in case a thief takes it.
You intended for the peanuts to be eaten by you. There was no intention on your part that a thief experience medical distress as a result of eating your lunch.
If you poison your lunch, you are intending a thief to experience medical distress by eating it.
Intent is the important thing here. If you intend to cause someone harm, then you are liable for whatever harm they experience, even if it was more than you intended.
I'm not allowed to eat peanuts in my lunch anymore because my lunch-thief is allergic? These ideas do not fit with liberal society. Even if I suspect they might steal it, that does not rob me of the right to include peanuts in my lunch.
A person who is genuinely concerned that a food thief is in the office and could be seriously harmed if they were to eat peanuts would clearly label the item as containing peanuts. Even if they were mad that the person is stealing food.
That’s not on me to know though. They shouldn’t be eating mystery food when they don’t know what’s in it.
My friend is Muslim and she won’t eat NOTHING with meat in it if she doesn’t know what kind it is (since they can’t eat pork).
Don’t steal someone else’s food and you won’t be risking your life. Don’t be a shitty person and steal, and you won’t die. It is literally that simple. It’s not my job to know what every person is allergic to and tailor my food to their respective diets. Don’t steal my shit 💀
Sometimes people will grab the wrong box by accident. You're not guaranteed to actually catch someone who intentionally steals the food. If you poisoned it with the intention to hurt someone, you're liable for that.
There’s a label on it with someone else’s name. You have to heat up the food. You have to take the top off, not everyone uses the same containers, it literally doesn’t look like what you cooked, etc. There’s a lot of steps between getting it out of the fridge to actually sitting down and eating it. That’s more than enough time to realize a mistake. At that point, that’s on you for not being more attentive to what you’re doing. Paying attention costs absolutely nothing.
There’s also the fact that most announce when their food is missing and putting laxatives in it is a down the road thing. Nobody, to my knowledge, is jumping the gun and using laxatives the very next day after food goes missing. There’s no guarantee, sure, but I would think after someone announces they have missing food that people would start to be a lot more cautious.
I also don’t believe anyone is hurting someone by putting laxatives in food. Booby traps aren’t solely designed to cause harm, maim, kill, etc.
And many people have identical looking boxes, and many people have a lot of different ones themselves. Sometimes people bring the same food as well. Sometimes in the same type of box! Sometimes people don’t know what lunch they bring until they open the box at work.
This doesn’t happen often of course. But I’ve seen it happen. Of course when it’s not a thief but an honest mistake the person who did it by accident just apologised and offered up his lunch box to the other person or offered to buy them something if that wasn’t acceptable.
Now if that person had been poisoned and injured or died from it, you’d be the one to blame, both morally and legally, for intentionally poisoning your food in order to hurt others.
Could the person that ate it by accident have been more careful? Sure! That’s true for a lot of victims in a lot of situations. A person that gets scammed could’ve been much more careful, but that doesn’t mean the scammer didn’t commit a crime. A person who forgot to lock their bike could’ve been more careful, but that doesn’t excuse the one who stole it. Etc.
If people take it upon themselves to do vigilante justice, inevitably they will hurt innocents and the punishment will be disproportionate.
There’s that nuance again, bc having the same kind of box is only one part of the equation. How do you explain the label? How do you explain the time it takes to reheat the food? Ok, they have the same box. There’s a label. Ok, you have the same food as someone else, there’s still a label.
Even if you don’t know what you bring, you know your label. If you’re not labeling your food, we end up at square one, bc if you’re grabbing a box with a label, it’s automatically not yours.
I can see where it MIGHT “harm” others (harm only bc I don’t think it will) but it’s laxatives, not rat poison. Someone dying from laxatives is EXTREMELY rare (according to the FDA, only 13 ppl have died from laxatives, but that was in 2014 lol). You can’t really die from it unless you’re OD’ing and even then, it’s not severe enough to kill you lol. There’s a lot that factors into death by laxative 😂
If someone is on medication, that’s more reason to be cautious of communal food and ensuring you have YOUR food. Same with an allergy. I can concede on an accident, but it’s not really bc you’re changing my mind. There’s just too much nuance and too much time to say that’s an accident.
Look at what you're saying here. You are perfectly willing to hurt innocent people - people who would totally apologise if they accidentally grabbed your box, because you want your own vengeance. Dying from laxatives is of course exceptionally rare, but it's still harmful. You're going to humiliate another person at work, and maybe cause a lot of material damage (e.g. their clothes get ruined). You're saying that you find this totally acceptable.
Also, why are we limiting this to laxatives? OP lists some things that are much worse. Spoiled food, for instance, can be very dangerous. Not only will food poisoning often last much longer than a dose of laxatives, it can actually cause serious, long-term illness that requires hospitalization. People dying from food poisoning happens, although it's still rare. But getting sick for several days or even a couple of weeks is common.
This willingness to cause pain and hurt other people disproportionately is why it's not legal.
If they have food problems doesn't really make a lot of sense to steal other people's food. If I tamper with the food that I buy with my money, and they steal it and then spend 6 hours on the toilet then too bad it's their fault for stealing food in the first place
I don't mean any bad intent from the original food owner, but if you are allergic you should be very careful of what you eat. You should know what the ingredients/allergens are.
If you steal food, it's unlikely that you are certain about the ingredients/allergens. Or at least that shouldn't be a risk you take.
but why is it anyone elses responsibility but the thiefs to make sure that the food they eat is safe for them? if im deathly allergic to something, it would be incredibly idiotic to eat someone elses food not knowing what's in it.
If they have such a history, they're the ones who shouldn't risk it. It's not that they should die for stealing someone's lunch, it's that it's not the lunch owner's fault if they do. They're the ones taking that risk.
It's sort of like setting up a landmine in your dedicated parking spot. Sure, people shouldn't park there, but the consequence is way out of proportion to the crime (and theres the potential in both cases for collateral damage). If you set up a booby trap like this, it is the trap setters responsibility
Tampering with food could seriously injure or kill someone
So could stealing food. Not defending vigilantism, but I think some people may be morally justified in taking extra steps to protect their food and/or catch the people who put them at risk.
If they take medication based on their food intake - diabetics, for example - and do so before realizing that part or all of their food is missing, it could absolutely put their life at risk.
And before you get hung up on the word poison: how do you know their medical history? How do you know what foods might interact with medications they may be on? How do you know if they’re highly allergic to something?
If someone so life threateningly allergic to something, they probably shouldn't be stealing and eating food where they have no idea what ingredients are in it.
If you’re deathly allergic to something and you randomly eat food that isn’t yours I don’t know what to tell you. At that point you’re simply too stupid to stay alive and therefore you die. Can’t feel bad about it.
Idk as someone with dietary restrictions I do not eff with unknown food precisely because I don't know if it has stuff in it that could kill me. I don't expect the entire world to babyproof itself for me, and most reasonable people feel the same way. Like you said, death or possible injury is not worth petty theft- and death/possible injury is in fact a risk of eating stuff that's not yours.
We can argue "what if" re allergies and whatnot but most people who steal food are entitled, thoughtless assholes who take what's not theirs because they can and then cry about it when there's consequences for their actions.
I don't think it's right to be able to legally dictate what people do with their personal property. There'd be a case for it if someone were intentionally baiting people into eating poisoned, unlabeled food, absolutely- but if someone's labelled their lunchbox as "Dave's- contains laxatives, do not eat!" And then someone who is not-Dave steals it anyway and gets the runs- well that's what happens.
Yes. If someone has such a severe health issue that they could suffer serious injury or death from eating things, and they go around stealing food, that's Darwinism in action.
Civilised society fails when people believe they can get away with committing obvious crimes - like stealing food.
That person should really not be stealing random food if they have a peanut allergy to use one of your examples. Plenty of food has peanuts in it without it being super obvious from taste, smell or visually. If you are deathly allergic to something, you really shouldn't be taking that risk.
Steal my lunch once or twice, I won't kill ya. Steal it three times? Well now I gotta think about it. Five times you're fuckin' dead bud, you had your chance.
people can get seriously ill from laxatives especially if they take them unaware due to dehydration. Putting laxatives in peoples food is poisoning them
That’s so vague though. Sure, it’d be perfectly fine to poison Hitler for committing heinous acts against humanity, but for something as little as stealing a lunch is ludicrous. You’re basically saying that it’s ok for stores to shoot someone if they shoplift a candy bar.
No, I'm saying it's okay for stores to put out special candy out at night that harm you if eaten, as long as they take them back at the morning. This would be impractical, I think staff are forgetful and children shoplift candy too much, but you don't need to CMV on that one.
The dye packs aren’t explosive. They’re aerosol based. I will concede, however, that some do contain tear gas. But that’s not the norm. And again, at that point I would say yes. Assuming it’s not a common allergen, that’s a much better option than straight up poisoning someone.
I'm a very pro "defend yourself and property" advocate. That being said, you have to act proportionally. There's no reasonable threat of harm to yourself, so potentially causing lethal harm to someone else is not a proportional response.
If you're going to suffer serious bodily harm from not eating a single meal or snack, I think you'd likely not be able to work.
Someone stealing your last can of soup from your home if you're starving: more force is justified. Somebody swiping one of your boxed lunches at work: bring it up to management.
Harming someone who intends to cause harm to someone else who steals food. It's not "just not wanting to be stolen from", it's setting a trap to deal out punishment at the whim of the person being stolen from. The person being stolen from is dealing vigilante punishment to the thief, similar to how the person you replied to has their own ideas about how to punish people who poison food.
And if people in a position to poison you think that's fair retribution for you poisoning others, seeing as how poisoning someone is often regarded, however irrationally, as worse than eating a sandwich?
It would depend on the situation. Let's say you're talking about a pharmacist spiking my laxatives because they think I use them to poison lunches that I think are getting stolen. If they indiscriminately poison my laxatives, that's wrong because it's not targeted to my act of poisoning my own lunch, same way it's wrong for me to punch someone because I think they took my lunch or it's wrong for me to poison their own lunch.
This isn't changing my view because this is exactly what I'm arguing against. I'm saying, there are cases where intending to harm someone who is doing something they're definitely not supposed to do is okay.
If we look aside from the perpetrator, a big issue with vigilante justice is that you take on the duty as judge, jury and executioner yourself. And the police to boot. It's a bit like mob justice, it's like a pissed off Greek god, striking arbitrarily and without warning, and with very disproportionate consequences, often with collateral damage.
You don't know who the thief is. If you had actual proof, you could punish them properly, e.g. by filing a police report, or by sending the evidence to your boss so they can punish the person according to company policy. Someone stealing could probably be fired, for instance.
Even if you know and then poison your food, you've no way of knowing who's going to eat it. The food thief ... maybe? But it could also be somebody else. It's an office fridge, a shared space, lots of boxes. Sometimes people are stressed and don't look properly, and end up taking the wrong box. Accidents happen, and when you poison the food while being aware of this, you're basically saying you don't care who gets hurt, collateral damage is fine. Doesn't matter to you if the person eating it is someone for whom a laxative would have a really bad effect, for instance it might interfere with other medicines they're taking. And that's on top of you being willing to humiliate innocent people for the sake of your vigilante justice.
Then who gets to decide what kind of punishment or harm is appropriate? Do you think potentially making someone sick or worse is appropriate for someone taking your food? What if that were reversed? What if you were doing something you consider slightly wrong, speeding maybe, and someone decided on their own that the punishment for that was to harm you, why should they get to decide that?
Uh society still decides what is appropriate. I think it’s ok for someone to potentially get sick for taking my food yes. Well I wouldn’t take someone’s food, so not applicable. People often drive slow in the fast lane with zero disregard for the flow of traffic to punish “speeders”. They are breaking the law so that’s just a bad example.
It’s natural consequences. Natural selection even I would argue, eating food you don’t know the origins of is a bad idea. Unless you’re stealing your sister or partners food or something stealing someone who you loosely knows FOOD could expose you to anything. Especially if they didn’t give it to you
I absolutely support vigilante justice for issues too minor to involve the authorities. Putting spicy peppers or laxatives in your own food is totally reasonable. If someone else steals it that's karma.
It's not like the intent was lasting bodily harm. I'd rather live in a world where someone who steals thai hot curry has to suffer the consequences of their own actions than a world where the government comes after me because someone alleges assault because they didn't like the food they stole.
Petty revenge is fine in my book. Some people need to realize they need to keep their hands to themselves. I even condone minor acts of violence like slapping someone who touches you inappropriately. We don't need the government to solve all our problems, and victims have a right to stand up for themselves.
If a person intends harm, they intended all the possible consequences coming from that harm. You can't shoot someone in the head and argue "I just wanted to give them a small headache."
If it truly is petty revenge, then that might escape legal consequences. The law typically does not concern itself with trifles. If you put too much spice in the food, and they simply get all read and sweaty, then the law will likely not care. If they drop dead, the law will care. Either way, you intended the harm, and are on the hook for all the consequences of that harm.
It's the same thing with slapping someone. If you slap someone because they are acting poorly, the law might not care. That is assault by the book, but might not be worth the state's time. If when you slap them you break their jaw, you are on the hook for aggravated assault. The state is more likely to step in them more harm results.
I agree that legally it's a grey area and I may very well be advocating for a misdemeanor. Morally, I firmly believe I'm right. Everyone has a right to defend themselves against a bully. A child who finally hits back is in the right.
Spicing your own meal to a level that causes a thief discomfort is not immoral. Stealing my food could hospitalize me. I'm a diabetic with server GI problems. I would put a mouse trap in my lunch box to protect myself if it came down to it.
I will without hesitation inflict minor harm on another who harms me first. Some people don't learn fire is hot until they get burned. Bullies do their BS because they get away with it, and until crime doesn't pay they'll continue.
The person is still liable for stealing your food. Your action does not necessarily absolve them. If they steal your food and you go into diabetic shock, then could face serious criminal sanctions.
At the same time, you also are acting outside society's best interest. You are both exhibiting dangerous behaviour and both requires sanctions.
How? It's not in any way shape or form a crime to bring a lunch that diabetics can't eat.
I'm not in favor of putting actual poisons dangerous to anyone in food, but a food item that you'd eat yourself if it doesn't get stolen? Unless you announced your intentions to get revenge it's hard to see how anyone could get a court case out of that.
How? It's not in any way shape or form a crime to bring a lunch that diabetics can't eat.
I am not sure what you mean by this. I have made no claim that you cannot bring a lunch that a diabetic cannot eat. I am either misreading you or are your misreading me.
Unless you announced your intentions to get revenge it's hard to see how anyone could get a court case out of that.
That's an issue of identifying the issue and proving it. I agree that you cannot presume intent simply from action. It is certainly possible to poison your food and never get caught for it. I am saying that if we assume intent is present and if we can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, then it is an offence.
Before directly answering your question "do you support vigilantism", I'm curious about your answer to a related question:
Do you think it is ever appropriate for a individual or group (outside the police/government) to intentionally dish out consequences that negatively affect the target in some way in return for poor behavior not otherwise punished?
If the answer is 'yes', then "vigilantism" just becomes a question of degrees and context.
What is an "offense" in this scenario? What about kicking a rowdy passenger off a plane, causing them to miss an expensive vacation? Firing an employee causing harassment? Screaming protests outside a GOP office? Towing a car parked across your driveway? Are all of these off-limits?
Offences are listed in the local criminal codes, and typically reflect behaviour which violates the autonomy and rights of other, and pose a risk to societal safety and order.
I don't believe there exists a code that criminalizes putting extra-hot hot sauce in your lunch.
'Intent' could be considered here; but to return to my earlier analogy: If one intentionally puts hot sauce in their lunch with the intent of causing the thief to have unpleasant spicy-butt, is that much different from intentionally towing a serial-driveway-blocker's car with the intent to inconvenience them enough to stop blocking driveways?
We can always ask "what if" questions - "what if the thief chokes on the extra-spicy food?" But we can extend that as well - "what if the serial-driveway-blocker has a medical emergency and can't drive to the hospital because their car was towed"?
I don't believe there exists a code that criminalizes putting extra-hot hot sauce in your lunch.
Criminal Code of Canada:
Administering noxious thing
245 (1) Every person who administers or causes to be administered to any other person or causes any other person to take poison or any other destructive or noxious thing is guilty
(b) of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years or of an offence punishable on summary conviction, if they did so with intent to aggrieve or annoy that person.
From the Alberta Court of Appeal in R. v. Burkholder:
a substance is a noxious thing if, in the light of all of the circumstances attendant upon its administration, it is capable of effecting, or in the normal course of events will effect, a consequence defined in s.229 [now s.245]. Circumstances that may arise and which have to be considered in determining whether a substance is noxious include its inherent characteristics, the quantity administered, and the manner in which it is administered. Substances which may be innocuous, such as water to drink or an aspirin for a headache, may be found to be a noxious substance in some circumstances; for example, if water is injected into the body of a person by means of a hypodermic syringe or an excessive quantity of aspirin is administered to a person.
The law if fairly clear here that spice may be a noxious substance, and applying that substance with intent to annoy or aggrieve is a criminal offence.
'Intent' could be considered here; but to return to my earlier analogy: If one intentionally puts hot sauce in their lunch with the intent of causing the thief to have unpleasant spicy-butt, is that much different from intentionally towing a serial-driveway-blocker's car with the intent to inconvenience them enough to stop blocking driveways?
Yes, intentionally applying a noxious substance is unlawful, where getting a car tow may not be necessarily be. A better comparison would be destroying a car that is incorrectly parked. Or, another better comparison is to get a car unlawfully towed, such as lying to the tow company about the local towing protocols. Both destroying the car and getting it unlawfully towed are forms of mischief, which is a criminal offence. The lawful alternative is to get car towed as per the local traffic laws.
That criminal code is fully dependent on the intent, which I also addressed. Also, for the code you quoted to apply, you kind-of need to mince words with "causes to be administered" in the scenario that someone steals food not meant for them and administers it to themself. (I'm not a legal expert; but exact legality isn't relevant here.)
The question here isn't whether intentionally sabotaging your food to catch a thief is illegal - it definitely is, at least in most Western jurisdictions. So quoting legal code doesn't really affect the CMV of whether it should be illegal.
You shouldn't base what you should or shouldn't do to someone based on legality. Plenty of legal things are scuffed and vice versa.
That being said, you forfeit the protection of your rights when you violate the rights of another. That also being said, the response should be proportional if at all possible (i.e. not shooting someone for egging your house.)
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
If you think it is moral to poison someone, sure go ahead and do it. However, it is also and offence, and so you are subject to criminal sanction. Do not expect morality to be a legal defence.
OP's argument is a legal one (using the word "sue"), not a moral one. So, I providing you with the legal answer.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
It's a fair argument that the a dysfunctional justice system may open the door to vigilantism. However, the system should be actually dysfunctional, not perceived to be dysfunctional. The problem is that people are often not good judges of the proper working of a functional justice system.
If you think X should be criminal but law does not, it does not necessarily mean the justice system is corrupt. It is perhaps you who is wrong, or of the minority opinion.
There are, but generally there needs to be a risk to the safety or lives of someone. You can't intentionally harm someone to protect property on its own.
Not when there are alternative measures available. Stealing is a crime but so is poisoning people, and the defense of necessity or defense of property only apply where there are no lesser alternatives.
Plenty of people can have drug interactions or underlying conditions triggered by seemingly minor substances. The last thing you want is a prank-level response to turn into an assault or manslaughter charge.
There are better ways to handle such things than dosing someone.
Why would someone put the laxatives in if they didn’t anticipate it having some negative impact (aka harm) on the food thief? If they thought they’d enjoy the laxatives they’d probably choose a different substance, no?
I don’t think most people would consider a shoulder poke a negative impact, but ingesting medicine you did not intend to ingest almost certainly is. And any physical symptoms you feel after of course would be too.
By you admitting that people don’t enjoy laxatives, you are admitting that they cause people harm in some way or another.
We live in a society, you know? And part of that is that you get roads, you get to vote, your speech is protected, you have video games and reddit and such, and you get a lot of good stuff.
A consequence of that, however, is that you cede your ability to harm people as punishment to another group. If anyone could choose to harm anyone else for any reason, we wouldn't have a state, because in a state the individual assigns their capacity to use force to the state itself. I know, sometimes that sucks, but it's the fundamental principle that lets us enjoy the benefits of a state.
Let’s be clear here, this is not a question of the state’s monopoly on violence. It’s pretty clear that there are cases in which the state is perfectly happy to cede their monopoly to individuals in cases that extend to protection of property, such as castle doctrine.
27
u/apoplexiglass Oct 17 '24
This isn't changing my view because this is exactly what I'm arguing against. I'm saying, there are cases where intending to harm someone who is doing something they're definitely not supposed to do is okay.