The “main issue” isn’t “privacy”. The main issue is trespass - ie permission (or lackthereof) to contact your person or property. WHY one doesn’t grant a person permission is irrelevant. It doesn’t matter and is not properly something one must ‘justify’ to others. Whether a person gives a rational or irrational reason…

“You’re reading more into my sentence than is actually there.”

I have to disagree. You may not have meant it, but that is indeed the way it came across - and given the sloppiness of so many other arguments for libertarianism (here and on the web in general), the objection to it was valid. I have SEEN -libertarians-…

I understand you were arguing against Joshua. But I’ve objected, not to the disagreement, but to the -reasons- you offered for disagreeing with him in this specific case:

“I’m not sure what part of destroying other people’s private property is “libertarian.” to which I identified that libertarianism doesn’t have a…

Apparently crashfrog didn’t bother following the link and wants to simply manufacture straw men - thus demonstrating the wisdom in not trying to even pretend he’s interested in a rational conversation.

“Dismiss” is now the logical response. Goodbye to him.

“I’m not sure what part of putting bulletholes in your neighbor’s garage because you’re too stupid to realize shot and bullet continue traveling when fired is “defending your property rights.””


I’ll simply repeat “The point is, trying to smear libertarianism or the defense of property rights by reference to this…

“Being provocative many times breaks no law”

And HERE is the fallacy which remains at the heart of all the posts, which is what has been continually challenged. Equivocating between MISJUDGEMENT and PROVOCATION is your error. They are NOT the same - not in court, not in a car with kids, not in the ocean with jets…

“They clearly are not the same thing and are not wrong for the same reason, otherwise they wouldn’t be distinct crimes”

BWAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!

“Rape? Straw man”

:)

Why do you keep putting quotation marks around the word moot?

Well I’m glad you now admit defending against trespass or rape isn’t ‘taking the law into your own hands.’.

And apparently the court disagrees with you that this was an “unnecessary use of lethal force”. The story indicates the court did not have a problem with his “use of lethal force”. It indicates the only problem…

“define “trespass” - which would require the drone actually be on the property”

BWAHAHAHAHAHAH. ON the property, not OVER it? Thank you for demonstrating your complete ignorance as to the concept of trespass. Nuff said. :)

As to anyone interested in why those attacking “privacy” or any other objection offered against…

LOL - Staying OFF someone’s property is the SAME as “I’m not touching you?” A judge would LAUGH you out of court (and rightfully so) if you try to claim that principle. And in fact the judge decided AGAINST your view that flying over the road (that was NOT the shooters property) was cause to shoot the drone. So your…

“My point was that the author and thus many of the commenters seem to be under the assumption that the copter operator was capturing images.”

I disagree that the author assumed the copter had a camera or was taking pictures ( I can’t speak to the knowledge of commenters). And given that the issue is trespass, whether…

“true alternatives”

LOL. Whether the alternatives you offer are “true” or false (or “obvious” or not etc) is NOT what makes something a false alternative. So -ignorance- of the fallacy is your reason for committing it. Thanks for making that clear. :)

Flying it over the road - and thus NOT on the other man’s property - is NOT being provocative - any more than STANDING on the road is being provocative. It ain’t HIS property. If another person MISJUDGES something, that is on the person doing the misjudging. Sorry.

“So, the moral of this story is that if you are going to be a dick and shoot at other people’s property you better make sure you are doing it when it’s over your land.”

No. The moral of the story is that if you think OTHERS are being a dick and violating YOUR property rights, you better make sure they actually ARE.

“THERE WASN’T A CAMERA INVOLVED IN THIS.”

“The copter didn’t have any camera. All this talk of “camera-wielding drones photographing their property” is moot.”

No its not “moot”. One doesn’t have to try to figure out if a drone has a camera or not (which can be difficult to identify), because trespass doesn’t require the presence of a camera for it to BE…

“The linked article suggests this is the third incident in which gunfire has adversely affected the plaintiff, including property damage.”

Which, without additional facts, tells us that the shooter is willing to defend his property with force. That neither makes him a libertarian nor anything else - except, in the one…