Ira Wells at the National Post takes on the Brian Knight case firmly on the side of...well, either the thieves or the RCMP: you decide.
The article directly challenges the article by Colby Cosh in the NP (which I blogged about here) and his philosophical arguments:
Cosh appeals to John Locke, who argued that property is an extension of one’s self because it is derived from labour. But Locke was a deeply religious and moral thinker who argued that the state was necessary to provide a “neutral judge” for the protection of the lives and material possessions of its citizens. John Locke — and I never thought the day would come when I would be forced to write a sentence such as this one — would not have advocated shooting someone who stole your ATV.So what would Locke write about on the subject of criminals? Well Cosh himself popped into the comment thread to volunteer a passage:
...a Thief, whom I cannot harm but by an appeal to the Law, for having stolen all that I am worth, I may kill, when he sets on me to rob me, but of my Horse or Coat: because the Law, which was made for my Preservation, where it cannot interpose to secure my Life from present force, which if lost, is capable of no reparation, permits me my own Defence, and the Right of War, a liberty, a liberty to kill the aggressor, because the aggressor allows not time to appeal to our common Judge, nor the decision of the Law, for remedy in a Case, where the mischief may be irreparable.Whoops.
(Check out the 60+ comments in this thread for some real interesting discussion, including people confused over the idea that violence solves problems) [which seems odd, because the original theft was a form of violence solving the "problem" that Brian Knight owned a quad. -ed]
