Liberterianism, unlike most other ideologies, attempts to reduce punishing people for words or for other non-violent actions. However there are some limitations to this principle.
1. Incitement. If you tell your employee to kill A, you will be punished with violence for that.
2. Braeking contract. If you fail to fullfill a contract, you may be actually punished physically for that, especially when this is explicitly stated in the contract.
3. Fraud. Although fraud is unlikely to be punished with violence in a libertarian society, but nonetheless physical force will be used to take some physical objects from the scoundrel.
4. Copyrights. Many libertarians don't support it, but many do. Here too a mere expropriation of property will be used, but this is physical force nonetheless.
5. Negligence.
I'm sure there are other cases. Now I'm not sure they can all be generalized to a more generic principle, but I will try nonetheless.
"If A, with intent, caused, or attemped to cause, harm to B or the property of B, either by physical actions or by other means, he should be liable in court. Actions that do not result in a physical harm to an individual or his property are always legal."
What do you think about the definition above?
People should be able to sign a contract that states what kind of punishment will receive one who breaks it. If you don't allow that, you are limiting the freedom of individuals to freely associate themselves with others.
If you want incitement to be legal, then surely you must legalize fraud as well. Because both incitement and fraud are not physical actions but merely words.
A market is perfectly capable of developing tools, if needed, to address costs and risks associated with breaking contracts without violence distortions. Unfortunately there presently is strong demand for a monopoly violence distortion
Eugene: People should be able to sign a contract that states what kind of punishment will receive one who breaks it. If you don't allow that, you are limiting the freedom of individuals to freely associate themselves with others. Not at all. Why should yesterday’s human will be more supreme than today’s human will? The opposite should rather be the case. Thus sticking to a contract just because you once thought it was a good idea is slavery, and nothing else. But if you can break a contract whenever you like, than building into the contract provisions to punish breaches is stupid: I break my contract before such clauses come in effect. Shortly, if you want to make sure that your partner won’t bail out on you, you’d better find someone to vouch for him, for no contract will protect you. Eugene: If you want incitement to be legal, then surely you must legalize fraud as well. Because both incitement and fraud are not physical actions but merely words. Being a physical action or not is not the issue. The issue is in directly aggressing against one’s property. Defrauding someone is doing just that. Inciting puts an other human being in the chain of events. And as every human being has free will, a necessary condition not only of libertarian legal theory but of every legal theory), than it was not you who directly caused whatever trouble we’re talking about. It was the guy you convinced; he chose to riot, or whatever. The Regression theorem is a memetic equivalent of the Theory of Evolution. To say that the former precludes the free emergence of fiat currencies makes no more sense that to hold that the latter precludes the natural emergence of multicellular organisms. | Post Points: 20
Not at all. Why should yesterday’s human will be more supreme than today’s human will? The opposite should rather be the case. Thus sticking to a contract just because you once thought it was a good idea is slavery, and nothing else.
But if you can break a contract whenever you like, than building into the contract provisions to punish breaches is stupid: I break my contract before such clauses come in effect. Shortly, if you want to make sure that your partner won’t bail out on you, you’d better find someone to vouch for him, for no contract will protect you.
Eugene: If you want incitement to be legal, then surely you must legalize fraud as well. Because both incitement and fraud are not physical actions but merely words. Being a physical action or not is not the issue. The issue is in directly aggressing against one’s property. Defrauding someone is doing just that. Inciting puts an other human being in the chain of events. And as every human being has free will, a necessary condition not only of libertarian legal theory but of every legal theory), than it was not you who directly caused whatever trouble we’re talking about. It was the guy you convinced; he chose to riot, or whatever. The Regression theorem is a memetic equivalent of the Theory of Evolution. To say that the former precludes the free emergence of fiat currencies makes no more sense that to hold that the latter precludes the natural emergence of multicellular organisms. | Post Points: 20
Being a physical action or not is not the issue. The issue is in directly aggressing against one’s property. Defrauding someone is doing just that. Inciting puts an other human being in the chain of events. And as every human being has free will, a necessary condition not only of libertarian legal theory but of every legal theory), than it was not you who directly caused whatever trouble we’re talking about. It was the guy you convinced; he chose to riot, or whatever.
If today's human can disregard yesterday's human will, then no contract can be made at all. People have to be able to trust each other's word. If two people agree that certain terms will be respected, then they will have to be respected. If one of the terms includes physical punishment then it should be legal as well. Sado-Masochism should be legal, and contract terms should be respected in the future. So the combination of these things leads to an unamibigious conclusion that physical punishment can be part of the contract and it is legal for a court to carry it out if needed.
Eugene: If today's human can disregard yesterday's human will, then no contract can be made at all. People have to be able to trust each other's word. If two people agree that certain terms will be respected, then they will have to be respected. If one of the terms includes physical punishment then it should be legal as well. Sado-Masochism should be legal, and contract terms should be respected in the future. So the combination of these things leads to an unamibigious conclusion that physical punishment can be part of the contract and it is legal for a court to carry it out if needed.
Indeed. No binding contract can be written. No human has any power on his fellow humans. Any transaction will go on only as long as both parties agree. The moment one stops agreeing, even if he formerly did, than forcing him to keep honoring the contract is slavery and nothing else. Thus, a contract is no magic piece of paper, but just a practical way of providing proof that an agreement ever existed in the first place. If you could make a long-term transaction based on verbal understanding alone, with no contracts or legal niceties, than yor agreement would be just as good as any contract. Paper is not magic.
Now, we could agree for you to work for me starting from January 1 until December 31, and I fire you on January 15. Even if the contract has been terminated, I’d still have to pay what the contract said for 15 days of work. So, terminating a contract cannot remove any obligations arising from an exchange that has already been made, but only those arising form transactions that would have been made in the future.
And again, why should I abide by the breach rules merely because I agreed once? Its foolish. In the example above, you worked for 15 days and I paid you your due for that time. The end. I do not care what I once agreed would happen if I fired you. That contract exists no more. Physical ‘punishment’ is not illegal if and as long as both parties agree. As soon as one stops agreeing, it becomes aggression.
For a decent exposition of that stance on contracts see the “Property Rights and the Theory of Contracts” chapter in Rothbard’s “The ethics of liberty” (audio here).
Eugene: Liberterianism, unlike most other ideologies, attempts to reduce punishing people for words or for other non-violent actions. However there are some limitations to this principle. 1. Incitement. If you tell your employee to kill A, you will be punished with violence for that. 2. Braeking contract. If you fail to fullfill a contract, you may be actually punished physically for that, especially when this is explicitly stated in the contract. 3. Fraud. Although fraud is unlikely to be punished with violence in a libertarian society, but nonetheless physical force will be used to take some physical objects from the scoundrel. 4. Copyrights. Many libertarians don't support it, but many do. Here too a mere expropriation of property will be used, but this is physical force nonetheless. 5. Negligence. I'm sure there are other cases. Now I'm not sure they can all be generalized to a more generic principle, but I will try nonetheless. "If A, with intent, caused, or attemped to cause, harm to B or the property of B, either by physical actions or by other means, he should be liable in court. Actions that do not result in a physical harm to an individual or his property are always legal." What do you think about the definition above?
I don't agree with punishment so most of this doesn't align with my views of libertarianism. I believe in reparations which requires physical force only so far as to extract payment due (which means potential imprisonment). Anything beyond that would be criminal in itself.
On the specifics, incitement and negligence should not be criminal in my mind. If you want some kind of security then get it in writing. Unless someone claims something (such as certain health codes are met) and it turns out to be false then this is fraud but if they don't claim those health codes were met then you should assume they weren't and proceed accordingly.
Incitement is also not a problem in my mind. You are responsible for your actions, I don't agree with blaming someone else for something you have done. I am willing to even take this to the extreme and not consider murder for hire to be criminal on the part of the person doing the hiring. The one who pulled the trigger is the one who committed the crime (though, I can see myself being swayed away from this point).
According to Rothbard, even if you specify in writing that you are responsible for someone's health, yet you fail to uphold it, then you will not be liable, since only contracts which according to Rothbard include implicit theft should be legally enforceable.
Eugene:According to Rothbard, even if you specify in writing that you are responsible for someone's health, yet you fail to uphold it, then you will not be liable, since only contracts which according to Rothbard include implicit theft should be legally enforceable.
I disagree with Rothbard on this. For example how can you make a contract with a babysitter? No significant amount of money changes hands (since most babysitters don't have enough property to provide as corrolary), yet it is crucial that the babysitter performs her duties. The life of your child depends on it. If corrolary in form of property can't be provided, then corrolary in the form of something else should be provided. This something else can be the future freedom of the babysitter. So if she is negligent in her job and completely fails to perform her duties and the child dies, she can be punished, either physically or by limiting her freedom.
Eugene:I disagree with Rothbard on this. For example how can you make a contract with a babysitter? No significant amount of money changes hands (since most babysitters don't have enough property to provide as corrolary), yet it is crucial that the babysitter performs her duties. The life of your child depends on it. If corrolary in form of property can't be provided, then corrolary in the form of something else should be provided. This something else can be the future freedom of the babysitter. So if she is negligent in her job and completely fails to perform her duties and the child dies, she can be punished, either physically or by limiting her freedom.
There are two things here that I think you're looking at... differently than I would.
Breech of contract on the part of the babysitter, if she hasn't already been paid, isn't INHERENLY or NECESSARILY "implicit theft." Above and beyond whether or not it is, any harm that befalls your child while your child is in her care is her responsibility, even if you don't have an explicit "contract" with her. You don't need to work the "implicit theft" angle any further than any harm done to a person's property or body is itself, a form of theft.
Micah71381:You are responsible for your actions, I don't agree with blaming someone else for something you have done. I am willing to even take this to the extreme and not consider murder for hire to be criminal on the part of the person doing the hiring. The one who pulled the trigger is the one who committed the crime (though, I can see myself being swayed away from this point).
So... I too await a convincing argument, if there is one!
But I tend to agree with your other points. The only one I didn't see you address directly was the question of copyrights. I'm curious where you stand on that one.
Copyrights I think deserve their own topic. My short answer: NDAs are fine, IP is not. If I sign a contract stating I won't share some idea that the other party is about to tell me (after I sign the contract) then he has every right to pursue legal action against me (sue for damages) if I share that information. However, if that information falls off the back of a truck and I see it (without signing a contract stating I won't share it) then he cannot sue for damages due to my sharing.
The difference between ideas and property in my opinion is that with ideas the original creator/owner doesn't lose anything when it is copied, unlike property in which for someone to gain the property someone else has to lose it. One is a zero-sum system while the other is a positive sum.
The thing that incites the most debate regarding copyrights is opportunity cost (claiming that idea theft is zero-sum) but that should probably be left for it's own thread.
Acting through the instrumentality of another is not the same as mere 'incitement'. If you hire a hitman to kill someone, you haven't merely incited the hitman to commit murder... Both you and he are liable for the murder. Your actions caused the victim's death almost as much as the hitmans' actions did. If it weren't for your wrongful orders or instructions, the victim would not be dead, and you knew this, or should have known this. To claim otherwise is the equally depraved inverse of the Nuremberg Defense: "I admit that I ordered or instructed X to kill Y, but I really didn't think he'd follow my orders. My orders were clearly unlawful, so it should be expected of him to disobey no matter what consequences might result for him, and my actions therefore attract no liability whatsoever."
Employers (or principles) must be vicariously liable for the wrongful actions of employees (or agents) inasmuch as these actions were performed exclusively in terms of the competant discharge of the agent's duties contemplated in their contract with the principle. Otherwise the politician who has lobbied and voted to enact unjust positivist legislation has done absolutely nothing wrong - only the policemen and jailors who physically arrest and detain people in terms of the legislation have done anything wrong. Generals ordering troops into battle aren't doing anything wrong - only the footmen on the ground with the actual weapons are evil. The state isn't evil - people are evil. This doesn't sound terribly libertarian to me. A legal system which accepts such nonsense isn't going to serve the ends of justice. The inverse Nuremberg Defense is even worse than the original one, if possible,
'Incitement' concerns situations in which X may have acted wrongfully to aggravate Y, thereby causing Y to act out violently, impulsively and contrary to Y's better judgement. It's a very weak defence that Y can use to limit, but not exclude, his liability in situations where the violent act in question was directed against X himself. It's certainly not the same as acting through the instrumentality of another. It's basically a form of 'contributory negligence' - Y admits that what he did was wrong, but claims that X contributed to the wrongfulness of the situation and did not act reasonably to limit his losses, therefore Y cannot be liable for all the damages X is claiming from him. If X somehow merely 'incites' Y to aggress against a 3rd party, then it is no defense at all.
2. Braeking contract. If you fail to fullfill a contract, you may be actually punished physically for that, especially when this is explicitly stated in the contract. It's not as simple as that. On the one hand, it must surely be possible for someone to consent to physical violence against their body in terms of a contract, or otherwise you wouldn't have any athletes playing contact sports, wouldn't have any surgeons, wouldn't have martial artists etc. But it's not so easy to contemplate actual corporal punishment as a specific sanction prescribed in a contract in case of a breach by one of the parties. There have actually been cases on this in the monopolised courts of the real world, by the way. The reason why it's difficult is because special sanction clauses don't actually exist to punish one of the parties in case of a breach, despite their appearance... What they actually do, in legal terms, is provide a choice of alternative performances to the parties, to protect them and give them alternative means to avoid repudiating the contract. Imagine that a contract provided for a servant to be whipped by their employer if they didn't perform in terms of other clauses, such as those regarding the standard of work expected of the servant. The servant now has a choice of performances between providing the required standard of work or accepting a whipping, either of which will be an acceptable performance in terms of the contract OR he can choose not to perform in terms of the contract, and repudiate it, which will give his employer the right to seek legal remedies against him However, these are civil remedies in terms of the law of contracts. Their purpose is NOT to punish the party who repudiated their contract - their purpose is to compensate the aggrieved party for his losses, inasmuch as he can prove he's suffered losses through a breach by the defendant. Courts will only make an order for 'specific performance' if the performance contemplated might yet be rendered such that it compensates the loss suffered by the plaintiff, and it's almost always offered as an alternative to simply paying damages. In other words, you can't be physically forced to the whipping post in terms of a contract you signed. You either accept the whipping and thereby perform in terms of your contract, or you repudiate the contract and have the matter referred to arbitrators who cannot possibly force you to be whipped, and will only order you to pay damages in money in terms of losses the aggrieved party can prove he suffered by your repudiation of the contract. 3. Fraud. Although fraud is unlikely to be punished with violence in a libertarian society, but nonetheless physical force will be used to take some physical objects from the scoundrel. Do you have a problem with that? He is wrongfully possessing property he does not own. Do you object to using the minimum necessary force to take property back from a thief, if there is no other way for the owner to recover it? The lawful owner is just defending his property. 5. Negligence. What about negligence? Are you concerned about people being sanctioned for negligent acts because a truly coercive act requires intent? I've heard some 'libertarians' suggest that a market legal system would do the complete opposite trick and refuse to take account of wrongfulness altogether - accepting only strict liability for delicts/torts. I'm not sure which is more difficult to imagine. Negligence and intent are not black-and-white. They are a continuum of grey. There is a large area in the middle where it's not possible to easily determine whether an act was negligent or intentional. Hence the concept of dolus eventualis - an act which is so grotesquely negligent, that it is effectively as bad as an intentional act. Indeed. No binding contract can be written. No human has any power on his fellow humans. Any transaction will go on only as long as both parties agree. The moment one stops agreeing, even if he formerly did, than forcing him to keep honoring the contract is slavery and nothing else. Thus, a contract is no magic piece of paper, but just a practical way of providing proof that an agreement ever existed in the first place. If you could make a long-term transaction based on verbal understanding alone, with no contracts or legal niceties, than yor agreement would be just as good as any contract. Paper is not magic. You are onto something about trying to force people to perform specifically in terms of a contract - that's why courts hardly ever order specific performance as a remedy, certainly if it's just by itself. If a relationship of employment has broken down, you can't force it back into shape. However, there was an expectation of due performance in this regard, enforceable at law. Despite popular belief, A LEGALLY BINDING CONTRACT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE WRITTEN DOWN, NOR DOES IT HAVE TO HAVE BEEN SIGNED. It is, of course, quite difficult from a practical evidence point of view to prove anything to a court about an oral or tacit contract, but it can be done under the right circumstances, and these concepts certainly do exist. Every time you buy something - anything - you have concluded a contract of sale. Do you sign a piece of paper every time you buy a Coke? No, the contract is normally only tacit, but it must logically have existed for a sale to have taken place. A contract is simply an agreement between parties, giving rise to personal obligations and rights amongst themselves, which they intend to be enforceable at law. One of its most important characteristics is that it gives rise to an expectation of due performance, the loss of which in itself constitutes a loss which may be claimed in damages in a court of law. If there was no intention to bind one's self to this expectation of due performance at law, then technically there is no contract. However, if one party is misled by the other to believe that they are entering into a contract, and not a lesser unenforceable agreement, then should the misrepresenting party be considered free of any liability in terms of the expectation of due performance he created in the mind of the aggrieved party? I don't think so. I think he committed fraud. Non bene pro toto libertas venditur auro | Post Points: 20
James, thank you for the long reply. Why does the babysitter have responsibility to take care of the child? It is only true if the babysitter has an implicit contract. But what if she breaks the contract? Will she only be fined if she was negligent and that resulted in the death of the child?
Another example. A poor but very talented performer wants to perform in a theater. The theater owner wants to be sure that the performer appears, but the performer can't sign a contract specifying a performance bond for his appearance due ot lack of funds. The performer would be happy to sign a contract that specifies a performance bond in the form of slight physical punishment for himself. This would satisfy the theater owner. However the court can't enforce this kind of agreement. In my opinion this limits the freedom of association and contract.
Further, I'd like to understand the difference. The performance bond, in case it is financial, can be extremely large, and the performer, in case he breaks the contract, may not have the required money. So in reality the court will require the performer to labor until he has enough money to repay the theater, which can actually translate to years of slave labor. How is that better than a short corporate punishment or just demanding that the performer performs the required work?
I think people who are opposed to liability of those who ordered a hitman have to oppose fraud law as well. The explanation would be as following. So what if he lied to you? Why did you give your property to someone who you don't completely trust? That's your fault. There was no aggression here, only a bad decision on your part.
Eugene: I think people who are opposed to liability of those who ordered a hitman have to oppose fraud law as well. The explanation would be as following. So what if he lied to you? Why did you give your property to someone who you don't completely trust? That's your fault. There was no aggression here, only a bad decision on your part.
My fault or the fault of the con man?
Eugene:I think people who are opposed to liability of those who ordered a hitman have to oppose fraud law as well. The explanation would be as following. So what if he lied to you? Why did you give your property to someone who you don't completely trust? That's your fault. There was no aggression here, only a bad decision on your part.
Eugene: James, thank you for the long reply. Why does the babysitter have responsibility to take care of the child? It is only true if the babysitter has an implicit contract. But what if she breaks the contract? Will she only be fined if she was negligent and that resulted in the death of the child?
There are two types of contracts, those that would hold up in "court" and those that wouldn't. In the case of the babysitter, most people assume that their babysitter will do a good job and maybe they will buy a nanycam to make sure. However, if the babysitter doesn't perform they have no recourse. On the other hand, if you are hiring a full time nanny chances are you are going to draft up a more complex and thorough contract that will specify exactly what is and what is not expected of the nanny and what will happen if the nanny fails to deliver on this contract.
The babysitter contract (just a verbal agreement to babysit) above wouldn't get you very far in court. Most likely you would just fire the babysitter and say bad things to your other parent friends about them if they didn't perform. The nanny contrtact on the other hand would allow you to seek reparations in court if they babysitter didn't perform their duties (such as keeping the baby alive).
Sometimes it's just not worth the risk to draft up a formal agreement. Time is valuable and if the risk of your highly-recommended babysitter killing your baby are low during her one night babysitting then drafting up a contract just isn't worth the time. Other times the risks are worth drafting up a contract. In the case of a nanny, you are going to be using them for a long period of time so the costs associated with drafting up the contract are more likely to be worth it since the contract will cover all future babysitting.
Eugene: Another example. A poor but very talented performer wants to perform in a theater. The theater owner wants to be sure that the performer appears, but the performer can't sign a contract specifying a performance bond for his appearance due ot lack of funds. The performer would be happy to sign a contract that specifies a performance bond in the form of slight physical punishment for himself. This would satisfy the theater owner. However the court can't enforce this kind of agreement. In my opinion this limits the freedom of association and contract. Further, I'd like to understand the difference. The performance bond, in case it is financial, can be extremely large, and the performer, in case he breaks the contract, may not have the required money. So in reality the court will require the performer to labor until he has enough money to repay the theater, which can actually translate to years of slave labor. How is that better than a short corporate punishment or just demanding that the performer performs the required work?
Just out of curiosity, why would the theater owner be satisfied with corporal punishment should the performer not show? This doesn't get his lost money back (lost customers, having to refund all patrons, etc.). I don't have a problem with the contract specifying this if that is what both parties want, I just can't see why they would want this.
I do believe that such a contract would be enforcable unless there was an alternative exit clause. That is, there could be a clause that states something like, "should the performer desire to exit the contract without performing and without physical punishment he must pay the theater owner $X". Without such a clause then the theater owner has the right to execute physical punishment on the performer.
ladyphoenix: Eugene: I think people who are opposed to liability of those who ordered a hitman have to oppose fraud law as well. The explanation would be as following. So what if he lied to you? Why did you give your property to someone who you don't completely trust? That's your fault. There was no aggression here, only a bad decision on your part. That's an interesting theory. I oppose liability (simply because I'm as yet unconvinced that there should be some liability) for a man who hires a hitman and I support a liability for those who commit fraud. Your explanation here doesn't do much in the way of explaining how those things are in any way related... Care to elaborate?
That's an interesting theory. I oppose liability (simply because I'm as yet unconvinced that there should be some liability) for a man who hires a hitman and I support a liability for those who commit fraud. Your explanation here doesn't do much in the way of explaining how those things are in any way related... Care to elaborate?
I would also like some elaboration on why you believe that fraud breaks down to liability. I don't see the connection.
I'll elaborate.If A tells B to murder C and you think A is not liable it means you see aggression only in physical actions, not in words, so how then can you think that fraud is a criminal act? Fraud also merely involves words, not a physical action. Moreover while in the first case a person actually died, in the second case we are only talking about lost property. So surely if you think that incitement to murder is legal you must think fraud is legal as well.
Eugene: I'll elaborate.If A tells B to murder C and you think A is not liable it means you see aggression only in physical actions, not in words, so how then can you think that fraud is a criminal act? Fraud also merely involves words, not a physical action. Moreover while in the first case a person actually died, in the second case we are only talking about lost property. So surely if you think that incitement to murder is legal you must think fraud is legal as well.
Ah, it seems to be a difference in the definition of fraud then. I believe that a truthful con artist is not engaging in criminal behavior. It's only if the con artists directly lies that it is a criminal act. So someone who is able to convince someone else to give them their money without lying to them is not committing fraud, they are just a smooth talker. Someone who convinces another person to give them money by lying to them though is fraudulent.
For example, if I say, "All profits go to charity." that is not fraud even though the operating cost of my business eats 99% of what you pay me and the charity only gets the 1% "profit". On the other hand, if I tell you, "Give me $10 and I'll donate it to charity." then $10 needs to be donated to charity or else it would be fraud.
Nevertheless, these are still words. Just like incitement.
Eugene: Nevertheless, these are still words. Just like incitement.
I believe that contracts are key to a functioning libertarian society. Without enforceable contracts everything else breaks down. How they are enforced is a matter for the market to decide but the key is that they are enforceable, just like no initiation of force is enforceable.
Usually when people refer to the non-aggression principle they tack fraud on the end of it because contract law is so vitally important. No initiation of aggression and no fraud. They are unrelated but both necessary.
Just out of curiosity, why would the theater owner be satisfied with corporal punishment should the performer not show? This doesn't get his lost money back (lost customers, having to refund all patrons, etc.). I don't have a problem with the contract specifying this if that is what both parties want, I just can't see why they would want this. I do believe that such a contract would be enforcable unless there was an alternative exit clause. That is, there could be a clause that states something like, "should the performer desire to exit the contract without performing and without physical punishment he must pay the theater owner $X". Without such a clause then the theater owner has the right to execute physical punishment on the performer.
The theater owner wants to be sure the poor performer appears. He then creates an incentive for the performer to appear by stipulating in the contract physical punishment if he doesn't appear. Such contract might be useful. Although according to Rothbard it will not be enforceable since only exchange of property can be enforced, nothing else.
Regarding incitement. I believe if person A told B to kill C, or worse payed him to do it, the heirs of C have every right to punish A. I believe it wouldn't be just to let A go.
Micah71381:I would also like some elaboration on why you believe that fraud breaks down to liability. I don't see the connection.
I tend to view fraud as an attempt to deprive a man of property under circumstances which, were he aware, he would not have consented. Fraud is not the same as omisison, in my opinion either. If I omitted that I intended to sell the property I am buying from you today for 1000x what I'm paying you, that's not "fraud." It is an intentional misrepresentation, a lie. Fraud is not morally unacceptable becuase it is a "lie," however. It is morally unacceptable because it is "theft."
Eugene:Fraud also merely involves words, not a physical action.
I may be misunderstanding something here, but this is nothing like fraud in my opinion.
If this is like ANYTHING, it is like bribery. One man paying another to commit an act... the man doing the paying commits no crime. It is the man accepting the payment, if he acts, who is committing the crime by breaking a contract... a contract for which he is liable. The only difference between this and murder for hire is that the murderer isn't breaking a contract, per se. The result is still liability only for the person who accepted payment, but only because he actually and directly violated the property of another (i.e. the murder victim in the case of murder-for-hire).
I accept Kinsella's thesis that if an individual reasonably believes that his actions will lead to a murder of another individual that individual should be liable for murder regardless of the weapon used, whether it is a gun or a hit man.
Regarding fraud. I see it more clearly now. If you give an object to another individual you give it under some conditions. If these conditions are not fulfilled this object is still yours, even if it is physically located in the possession of that individual. So its not a matter of lying or of fraud, its just a matter of who is the legitimate owner regardless of the physical location of the property.
Eugene:...if an individual reasonably believes that his actions will lead to a murder of another individual that individual should be liable for murder...
A man who doesn't save a drowing man did not act, so you can't talk about his actions. However I don't remember the exact phrasing of Kinsella. But I think you understand the point.