| Self-Defense is quite the issue. Is it a right? How much is rightful? If you exceed your rights, will you therefore owe reparations? | 自衛は面白い問題だ。権利か？どこまで？権利を越したら賠償になるか？ |
| Rothbard may have agreed with me, if I interpret a certain ambiguity correctly. This specifically relates to the interrelation of self-defense and punishment. Rothbard does state that excessive force in defense violates the rights of the original criminal, and that it exceeds proportionality. This means that self-defense is limited by proportionality just like punishment is, and (this is the interpretation I would like Rothbard to have held) that both added together must not exceed proportionality. | ロスバードが拙者と同意したかも、ある曖昧を正しく解しているなら。自衛と処罰の関係についてだ。自衛のために過度な力は比例を越して本来の犯罪者への権利侵害になると、ロスバードが述べた。ならば、自衛も処罰のように比例に限定される。自衛と処罰を足して犯罪の比例を越さないべきだ、と拙者が主張する。ロスバードもそう信じたと思いたい。 |
| I hold that there is no line between self-defense and punishment. The distinction is arbitrary (I’ll present my argument that this is so later), so I hold that it should be void, and self-defense and punishment should operate under the same rules. | 自衛と処罰には境界はないと思う。そのけじめが勝手な決定だと後に論ずる。今じゃその境界を無力と見なして、両方を同じ法例の下で扱うべきにする。 |
| Rothbard attacks the “maximalist” self-defense doctrine, whereunder execution is appropriate for any crime. It is correct to reject this; I mention it only as a reference for myself when I discuss Walter Block’s theories. | ロスバードがどんな犯罪にも処刑で罰できる最大限定の自衛論を責める。これを否定するのは正解だけど、拙者がウォールター・ブロックの原理を話すときのために言い及ぶだけだ。 |
| Just one quibble regarding a defendant tried in absentia (this relates more directly to my view on punishment, the next chapter): if the defendant doesn’t agree to be bound by the judge’s verdict, then he is not. The statement by the judge is just the statement of one man’s opinion, changes no one’s rights, and does not obligate the defendant to comply with the sentence. | 次章に直接に関しているが、欠席裁判について異論を述べる。被告人が裁判官の判決に承知しないと従い義理はない。裁判官の宣言は一人の意見だけで、権利を変えない。被告人を判決に応じる義務を課さない。 |
Ethics of Liberty, Chapter 12: Self-Defense
Bookmark the permalink.