Um no. People using violence to get their coins back from a crook is not self-defense. Their coins were gone the moment they suspended their common sense and were engulfed by their own greed. Pirate forced no one to give him their coins, and he never gave anyone anywhere near a plausible reason as to why his scheme should work as promised. Pirate didn't invent the Ponzi scheme so everyone here should have known better. It's the victims greed that committed the crime.
I disagree completely. Pirate's culpability has no effect on his victims' culpability and vice versa. Each is fully responsible for their own actions and the consequences of them.And yes, using violence to get stolen property back from a thief is self-defense. In a civilized society, within the scope of operation of its legal and police systems, one give's up one's right to the use of self-defense in non-emergency situations. But where those systems don't apply, one still has it.
If you and I were stranded on a desert island, I would fully have the right to use force to defend my property from you, including taking it back from you if you had stolen it. Defense of one's property is self-defense.
