Proportionality

Purloined Chewing Gum


Fred chews gum. In fact, he loves to chew it and does so every day. He treasures his chewing gum.

One morning, John takes a stick of Fred's gum without permission. John and Fred are not well acquainted. Fred takes serious exception to John's violation of his property rights. Fred beats John soundly and with some severity, perhaps even killing John.

Is Fred justified in his response to John's action? The answer is, "it depends". It depends on the basic assumptions under which one labors when considering such questions.

Many people, perhaps very much most, would raise the idea of "proportionality". For a vast majority, beating someone for having taken a stick of gum without having first asked is not justified, much less killing for said cause. It is largely deemed "irrational". But is it? Let us take a somewhat deeper look.

What, exactly, defines "proportionality"?

Who gets to determine the standard that defines proportionality in an objective, objectively valid, and universally applicable way? Whence their authority to determine it for all men and foist it upon them? These are not rhetorical questions, nor are they in any way trivial or invalid. Not only are those questions central to the validity of the concept of proportionality, upon close examination one will find that they have no satisfactory answers.

Similarly, by what authority does one man get to judge the perceptions of another and deem them inadequate or even criminal and worthy of... what, exactly? Punishment? Imposition of judgment upon them? The taking of his property in some presumed act of equity and justice?

What is the objective standard by which all this presumably well-intended busy-bodying is justified?

The answer is: there is none. The concept of proportionality from the standpoint of objective validity is hopelessly unanswerable precisely because an objective and practicable definition is not possible.

What, then, is the valid basis of action where defense of property rights is concerned?

The ONLY salient fact where acts of defense are concerned is the fact that one human being has violated another; an act to which the former cannot validly claim as justly perpetrated against the latter.

Any purported absence of proportionality, even presuming that the notion has even the least shred of credibility, is at best a distant secondary consideration.

If A violates B, regardless of manner or degree, it is clear that B is within his rights to take action against A. Through the very act of violation, A places himself at risk, regardless of awareness or intent. In pure principle, in violating B, A has risked forfeiture of all he possesses, including his First Property (life).

In reality, people do not react with great extremity, save very rarely. Therefore, the "problem" really isn't. Thoughts to proportionality are of no practical importance in most situations. But if this is so, where rests the delineation between this and the cases where proportionality is justly mandated?

The notion of proportionality, once accepted as valid, establishes a slippery slope. By small increments does that slope find itself becoming steeper and more generously slathered with ever better lubricant. This is what human beings do, our histories overwhelmingly lousy with examples. How does one think we humans have gone from our ancient anarchist roots, to our currently deplorable state of government-imposed, arbitrary, and capricious restriction upon our rightful prerogatives to act? It did not happen over night, but rather by small incremental, creeping motions away from freedom, toward restriction in usurpation of the rightful claims of every man to act.

Consider further the more extreme case where one's life is placed in immediate danger of destruction at the hands of another. How easy it is in the comfortable, time-flush, and safety-rich environment of a prosecutor's office chair to judge the "proportionality" of another man's acts of self-defense, enjoying the advantages that were unavailable to those forced into make what were likely a split-second decisions, their very lives riding on next choices?

Every day there is some chiseler in a cheap suit presuming to stand in judgment of the "proportionality" of another's actions, absent an objectively measured standard not only by which to judge the validity of another man's acts, but to justify it before the public. Given this, ought the concept of proportionality not come under strict scrutiny?

The foremost and perhaps only consideration in cases of a man acting in defense of his rightful property is the initial violation perpetrated against him by another. No man holds the least authority to violate the rights of another, no matter the degree, absent violation by that other. The concept of proportionality, imposed upon others under color of just authority, introduces the notion of degree in such a manner that potentially erases all authority of the individual to act within the metes and bounds of his inborn, autonomous right. The very definition of "proportionality" may be altered in whatever manner and degree deemed desirable or "necessary" by those who presume to lord over the rest, whether it be kings, legislatures, or what have you.

History readily demonstrates that such standards tend to be arbitrary in the best cases, and intentionally, viciously malevolent in the worse. The false onus of proportionality places our very lives in jeopardy through invalid obligations that leave men without the freedom to act spontaneously and with the knowledge that they will safe from the capricious responses of his fellows under false authority. In dire situations, such reservations and the hesitations that arise therefrom can cost a men their lives. Is it not bad enough that a man is forced to act in defense of his very life? Is there any just cause to further burden him with having to worry whether his choice of response to a threat to life and limb will earn him a prison term and possibly the financial destitution of those whom he loves?

This imposition of the false standard of proportionality constitutes a gross and criminal violation of the rights of all men. It is, in fact, a deep, gross, and insidious violation of the much touted NAP†, wrapped in a false narrative of just limitation of the rightful prerogatives of free men pursuant to "justice". It would be laughable, were it not for the destruction heaped upon righteous men for their purported failures to respond "proportionally" to crimes acknowledged to have been committed against them.

Furthermore, even for "lesser" violations of one man by another, the ultimate right of destruction of the violator remains a valid claim for those violated. Consider unamended violations, where the violator refuses or otherwise fails to make amends for his crime, regardless of how trivial someone might regard it. If the violator is allowed to escape without consequence, then the rights of all men have been ceded in principle. If one may get away with X, then what in principle invalidates his claim to the right to commit Y without consequence? Upon what basis do we justify the effective allowance of one violation while denying another?

John steals a piece of Fred's chewing gum and the latter decides to take great exception to the act for reasons his own. Fred demands John make him whole, but John steadfastly refuses. Is Fred ultimately entitled to John's life? I say he is, for if he is not, then an arbitrary line has been drawn between "yea" and "nay", the position of which is equally arbitrary. Once that has been established as an accepted (by whom???) precedent, ANYTHING is possible in terms of moving that line such that a man can be required to hand his very life over to another on demand, as is the case in principle in the UK where any morally valid act of self defense is likely to earn the defender a stint in prison pursuant to the arbitrary and grossly unjust "laws" of that land.

The concept of proportionality looks good on cheap paper, written in large scrawl with crayons of bright and pretty colors. However, once one breaks out the scalpels in scrutiny of the idea, problems begin to show, as we see.

Proportionality is an emotion-driven fallacy that provides tyrants a toehold by which their usurpations are falsely, yet compellingly, justified and by which the lives of men thereby stand perpetually in ruin's shadow.

Therefore, it is my gentle and respectful recommendation that you give these ideas their due consideration with the requisite diligence and open mind. If you ever find yourself discharging the duties of a juror, reject all assertions of proportionality as a justification of prosecution, for it is a false basis.

As always, please accept my best wishes.