[KlassWar]

It is a fact that positive law makes a distinction. It is not a fact that it ought to.

If you ain't done your due diligence to secure your stuff, and for whatever reason your stuff does get stolen, you can't deny it's at least partly your own dumb ass's fault (I mean, not with a straight face).

Let's say you leave your house's fence'n'door unlocked, even wide fucking open. Can't exactly go all whiny if someone gets in, can you?

[Eran]

No argument. I cannot bitch when somebody steals my unlocked and easily-visible stuff. My insurance company, for example, may rightly decline to pay me for the loss.

That doesn't change the fact that the person who stole my stuff is a thief, and if I do manage to get my hands on them, I have every right to demand it back.

[SecretSquirrel]

No, even if you leave your stuff unlocked and open it is still theft to steal it in a common law jurisdiction (which is the sort that would inevitably arise in a libertarian world, as opposed to civil codes)

The difference is that it removes burglary and breaking+entering as possible charges, which greatly reduces criminal sentencing.

[MrAnthrope]

I like PG but I think he's talking apples and oranges about believing that more freedom should be the first approach to a so-called problem in society, but the same might not be true when confronted with violent acts. In the former particular he refers to situations where society arbitrarily curtails freedom of indulgence and in the latter he describes instances requiring self-defense. There IS a common denominator in his examples, and that is an encroachment on individual freedom -- in the first instance, by society; in the second instance, by a predator. His solution of "more freedom" would actually be appropriate in both instances -- the freedom to defend oneself or defend another without fear of retaliation. Defending oneself or another from a predator is always understandable even when society is not pleased with your methods. Defending oneself from the dictates of society never works out well.

PG has a much better attitude about discussions with fellow humans than I. I rarely entertain the notion that there is a possibility that the other guy is right if he does not agree with me. By necessity I have to keep my philosophical discussions very short with very little debate when agreement is not quickly reached. I recognize no shades of gray where principle is envolved and I quickly reach the conversational equivalent of grabbing someone by the lapels and shaking them. I am always truly astounded when another human believes individual freedom should be limited by a greater number of humans and I don't believe anyone can "converted."