Let's use some real life data.

Rehabilitation for individuals who have committed sexual offenses reduce those sexual reoffending (recidivism) by roughly 35% compared to not receiving treatment.

So if there are 100 rapes, your method will reduce that down to 65. Removing that person from society completely reduces it by 100%.

Also, in the case of someone who will not stop unless immediately put down, there is no alternative choice.

Even having this conversation with you is really disturbing. I'm guessing you don't have children of your own? I have an infant daughter, for example, and if I ever saw a man on her trying to do something that horrific, why on earth would you think that my impulse should be to just assume I can stop him and she won't be violated or even killed? How do I know that he won't win in a strength contest with me and keep going, or even do worse after that point? How do I know what his ultimate motives even are? How do I know his end-goal isn't to kill me and my whole family? How do I know if he has a gun, or a knife? All I know is there's a man trying to rape my daughter. I don't have the time to ask 20 questions and I don't know what he's doing or what he's capable of, or who he even is!

The ONLY rational answer is to kill the man, if at all possible. The fact that he broke into my home and is attempting to assault my child is all the information needed to make the single most rational choice a father could make.

If you're not a parent and your take is you think you can toss this person around and hope your child, yourself, and/or your family won't be violated or murdered, then please for the love of god don't have children, I beg you.

No propaganda at all. I am anti-government.

Except that it is, and you are patently wrong.

Which life has more value? Hitler, or your child's? If given the choice, would you have killed Hitler to stop what he did?

Would you kill a child rapist to stop them from raping a child? What if it was the only way to stop them?

You're stuck. If you say you Hitler has the same value, you wouldn't have killed him, you wouldn't kill the child rapist, etc., then you're either deluded, trolling, stupid, or evil, but if you agree you would then you're admitting that human value is not only subjective, but that you yourself personally and wholly understand that all human life has not only subjective value and relative value, but also kills your statement entirely.

The notion of surplus value isn't real, it's an arbitrarily made-up idea without an essence (see Aristotle.)

All that matters is this: I ask you to mow my lawn and you say sure, if I pay you $20. We both agree. You mow my lawn and I give you $20. That's it.

Every human being values everything differently. If someone else came along and for reasons that are their own decided to give me $1,000 because they loved my lawn so much and I agreed to accept that, the two of us made a transaction. We, as consenting adults, made an agreement. It has nothing to do with you. You do not get to come along and tell me we cannot make that trade, that it isn't worth $1,000, or that I now owe you $500 because you were the one who mowed it.

In fact, the $1,000 itself has no intrinsic value. The value of a given currency fluctuates by the minute. Something on a store shelf could be selling for $1 today and $2 tomorrow, then $0.50 Wed and $5 by next week Friday. Then something else could be worth completely different values too.

Maybe this week $10 gets me a meal and a t-shirt but tomorrow it gets me 2 meals and a t-shirt and the following week I can't buy any meals or t-shirts at all - with that same $10.

EVEN if it were some kind of objective concept, what exactly would the numbers be in a network where everything has value independent of everything else?

Let's say you work for me and make shirts. I pay you $10 a shirt and sell it for $20. You might say that according to Marx, I should give you $20, and let's leave out everything else for the sake of argument. Why is $20 the value?

What if I also own the grocery stores, and I agree to pay you 100% more and raise the grocery prices by 100%? So now instead of you having $10 and a loaf of bread costing $1, I now give you $20 and that loaf of bread now costs you $2? So you now have the exact same buying power and I'm now making the same value from you.

No offense if you are a self-proclaimed Marxist, but I find that the socialist/communist crowd rarely thinks through their positions.

Then just stop shopping there or taking jobs from there.

If you own a business, refuse to do business there.

In a true free market, if you don't like the way people do business, you have freedom of association.

One of the biggest problems in modern reality isn't big business, it's government. Government takes away your freedom of association and is deficient at protecting the public from unjust actors - specifically fraudulent actors.

A free market requires protection from fraud and fraud is fundamentally any withheld/false information that is withheld or falsified in order to get you to consent to something you otherwise wouldn't consent to. If I go to sell you a car and don't tell you it doesn't have an engine yet make it seem like it does and you agree to buy it for $5K I am defrauding you. You cannot give consent if you do not have adequate information.

Now keep in mind that obtaining information is also your responsibility and not only mine as the seller, but I cannot go out of my way to withhold information or lie about information to get you to commit to something you otherwise wouldn't.

The fundamental PROBLEM is that we do not live in a state of freedom, we live in a hodge-podge between freedom and authoritarianism because a huge swath of modern-day populations do not want the responsibility associated with freedom, they just want to lose some money out of every paycheck and have a bunch of things taken care of, then complain all day because things aren't exactly as they want.

Rehabilitation of rapists prevents 35% of reoccurring events. Incarceration/death prevents 100%.

Life is messy and would always continue to be so. If someone breaks into your home you have a lot of choices to make and suddenly, and you might not have enough time to make them. If the person who breaks in has a gun and intent to murder you and your family, you could be the only thing that could stop that, so do you try to take them out in a non-lethal manner, potentially understanding that if they kill you your whole family is going to die next? If you're armed, do you hesitate and ask questions? Are you confident enough that this person isn't a legal threat to you and your family? How can you know, after all? And if you do hesitate, for how long? What do you do and say, exactly? Remember, you might only have 3 seconds left before you're murdered and then your entire family is subsequently murdered, so take all the time you need.

Here's the thing though. You broke into my home and I don't know you. You broke into my home. All I know about you thus far is that you - for one reason or another - are willing to disregard a very pivotal aspect of the overarching trusting society. This is my castle in my own kingdom and I the ruler of that kingdom. It is my responsibility to first and foremost, protect those under my care. I MUST protect my family first and you, a distant second. I don't necessarily have time to ask questions, or try alternative methods of detainment that may not work. I own firearms and have gone shooting many times. There is a reason why both military and police are trained to shoot in the torso - leg/arm shots are to difficult even on a non-moving target, and even if you DO succeed with such a shot, it guarantees nothing. I could shoot an assailant in the leg and they could still have full mobility in that leg, or they now shoot me with the gun they were holding, then move on to murder 4 other people, 3 being children.

The notion that you bring up shooting to disable tells me you don't own a firearm and have possibly never even fired one. This is a children's fairytale. With lives on the line with someone who broke into your home you can't rely on a sentiment so childish. Tasers don't even work on everyone, nor does pepper spray. People have been murdered after being tased. Here is a excerpt from the New Haven Register:

Several high-profile cases involve violent suspects or murderers who were completely unaffected by police Tasers. According to data and law enforcement field reviews, Tasers fail to incapacitate a target roughly 40% of the time.

With respect, homosapien, you seem super naive to the world. How old are you and where are you from? I ask that ironically understanding you are not likely to tell the truth to those questions.