Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site lanl.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!lanl!jlg
From: jlg@lanl.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Hard case #1
Message-ID: <21863@lanl.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 19-Feb-85 22:25:15 EST
Article-I.D.: lanl.21863
Posted: Tue Feb 19 22:25:15 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 21-Feb-85 05:40:19 EST
References: <257@cmu-cs-k.ARPA> <695@topaz.ARPA>
Sender: newsreader@lanl.ARPA
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Lines: 17

> I had better be damn sure that I don't do something in the process of
> stealing that is "worth my life"; threaten someone with deadly force,
> for example.  I would then have no moral grounds whatsoever (I don't
> believe you have a right to kill (innocent people) to survive).

Is someone 'innocent' if he is refusing you the food you need to survive?
It seems to me that any force used to prevent the starving thief from
getting food is potentially lethal force.  Is the thief justified in using
lethal force in response to this?  I don't know the answer to this.  I
prefer a society which tries to prevent stavation to the point of theft,
even if this society has to remove wealth from people involuntarily to do
it.  After all, an orderly taxation system is at least more peaceful than
midnight confrontations between starving thieves and property holders.
Besides, the starving thief doesn't steal from the rich, but only from
those people that can't afford a security system.

J. Giles