I read about a unique situation that made me question how an anarcho-capitalist society would have responded if its citizens saw the homeless man having his face gnawed off by a cannibal. This isn't a rhetorical inquiry; I'm genuinely curious to see the voluntaryist response concerning potential intervention, private courts, et cetera. . . .
Here's the link for the story. And if you have the stomach for it (you've been adequately warned), here's a pic I found of the aftermath. Poor guy, it's horrible.
I'm pretty sure everyone and their mom has heard about this story by now. Seriously just search "homeless miami" without quotes and at least the third link is about this story. Homeless Miami.
But I don't really see what's difficult to imagine. If you've gotten to a point that you can imagine a free society, I'm not quite sure how this situation is so different from any other. They were on a highway.
1) The owner of the property has final say as to conduct on the property. Obviously most people don't approve of this sort of thing. So there is immediate grounds for intervention there.
2) Suppose the cannibal owned the property. There would still be legitimate grounds for intervention as he is harming a human being. (We can get into whether this was concentual later.) I doubt any private court would find someone who moved to stop the man from his feast long enough to determine the nature of the situation.
3) If this was concentual, (it happens) then there is still the issue of it being in public view, and them being naked, besides. There would likely be some type of community ordinance against such things, which would again legitimize a private defense agency or insurance agency to intervene (possibly the man's own representative).
What is it you're wondering about?
I'd empty the magazine.
@JJ:
Alice is harming Bob. Caroll intervenes and aggresses against Alice. Alice takes Caroll to court. Why shouldn't Alice obtain damages from Caroll? Aye, Alice was harming Bob, but what's this to do with Caroll? The Caroll--Alice tort and Alice--Bob tort are two difference cases.
It would seem that the issue at hand is similar to the question: "If Alice killed Bob who is a homeless guy with no protection agencies or family, how would she get persecuted?" It seems that Alice would be shunned by the society, but can anything beyond that happen? One view is that Alice's aggression against Bob created a debt from Alice to Bob, whether or not Bob is alive. If he is alive, this debt can be collected on Bob's behalf; if he is dead, then the debt has become ownerless just like any object, and may be picked up by whomever.
Is there any historic evidence how this sort of thing was resolved/punished in anarchic societies (medieval Ireland and Iceland, Wild West, etc.)? Maybe people always formed communities of mutual protection, even if they had no friends or family. And the reason why such question even arises in modern times is that everyone relies on the government for protection, so nobody cares about ensuring his own protection by entering into mutual-protection pacts with others. (Sort of similar to how people blindly trust FDA and don't check the safety of their food and drugs through private means.)
I suppose, simplistically speaking, it all boils down to what people recognize as the law. If the community recognizes such defense as legal, then it will be legal.
If the cannibal is eating someone's face off, and a bystander shoots the cannibal, when the bystander is brought to court by the cannibal's estate (or protection agency), the bystander says: "I was protecting the victim's rights. If the victim shot the cannibal, clearly, this would be a case of self-defense. But if the victim could violate the cannibal's rights in self-defense, so can I violate the cannibal's rights in defense of the victim on behalf of the victim."
I.e., we could argue that defense of the victim establishes retroactively a contract between the defender and the victim, in which the victim delegates to the defender the victim's rights of defending oneself.
FlyingAxe:Alice is harming Bob. Caroll intervenes and aggresses against Alice. Alice takes Caroll to court. Why shouldn't Alice obtain damages from Caroll? Aye, Alice was harming Bob, but what's this to do with Caroll? The Caroll--Alice tort and Alice--Bob tort are two difference cases.
No they aren't. You use legal terms as if you're familiar with law, but your conclusions leave much wanting.
First of all, you're going to have to define "harming". After all, if I open up a competing business and "steal" market share from you, I'm essentially "harming" you. This is not a tort. This is illustrates the importance of using precise terms.
So I'll strike your first sentence and assume you mean Alice is "aggressing" against Bob. Now we're assuming Bob is unable to communicate, as Alice could have asked Bob if he concented to the actions of Alice. (i.e. if his rights are currently being violated.) If we assume this is the case, then it is likely a form of implied concent applies. Bob has a right to enlist others to defend his property (including his body) from aggressors. If Bob is being battered and is unable to give explicit concent to a bystander to come to his aid, I doubt any private judge would rule the Samaritan bystander was in the wrong in the circumstance you described.
As for Caroll intervening and "aggressing" against Alice, again you're using imprecise (and ultimately misleading) terms. Alice was the one who initiated force. (Again, assuming by "harming Bob" you meant aggressing against him, and not "stealing" his customers.) By being the initiator of force, Alice has essentially already admitted that she thinks force is permissible, by her act of aggression. Therefore, by the concept of estoppel, Alice has no right to claim Caroll was out of line (or crossed rightful boundaries) by "aggressing" against her. (I use the scare quotes because while not technically wrong, I tend to think of "aggression" as implying the initiation of force.)
So the two cases may very well be "two" cases, but they are directly related...which I would argue does not make them "different" in the sense that they are separate...which is the sense it seems like you were implying.
Indeed, what is the difference between Alice aggressing against Bob and Caroll fighting back, versus Alice aggressing directly against Caroll, and Caroll fighting back? Under your logic, it would seem that Caroll could be rightfully taken to court for defending herself...because indeed, in your terms of description, Alice aggressed against Caroll...and Caroll aggressed against Alice. Two different cases.
In reality, the cases are directly related, and thus cannot be considered separate and isolated. Caroll's actions are a direct result of, and in direct response to Alice's actions.
I don't think one can harm someone else in what doesn't belong to him. Since my potential customers' money does not belong to me, you're not harming me by luring them away to your business.
But Alice still owns her body, even as she is attacking Bob. When Caroll damages Alice's body, she has damaged Alice's property, violating the latter's rights.
But anyway, I figured out that the two cases are connected.
The idea that by aggressing Alice implicitly says that there is nothing wrong with aggression is novel, however.
Even if Alice has demonstrated that she disagrees that aggression is wrong, why does that give us right to aggress against her? (This ignores the argument about implicit contract of defense, etc.)
Let me ask another question: imagine Alice owns some land and Bob owns some land. Alice takes some of Bob's land away by force, using a private army. Then Bob defends back with his own army and forced Alice's army to retreat. How far is Bob allowed to attack?
1) Until his initial borders 2) As far as he wants (Alice demonstrated she doesn't respect the concept of property; now Bob can take all her property to himself, and she doesn't have a right to protect herself; in fact, Bob may even enslave Alice and all her private soldiers) 3) Until Alice asks for mercy and makes a treaty with Bob thus re-establishing mutual respect for property (and then Bob keeps whatever territory he conquered up until that point)
FlyingAxe:I don't think one can harm someone else in what doesn't belong to him. Since my potential customers' money does not belong to me, you're not harming me by luring them away to your business.
Well ultimately you can define words however you want. But that doesn't mean anyone else is going to go along with them.
Commonly used definitions are what allow people to communicate effectively. Dictionaries provide a common resource for people to keep their definitions straight. Kind of like a standard set of weights and measures.
Harm noun \ˈhärm\
Examples:
Notice...
#2: one does not own his reputation or have a "right" to it.
#5: businesses do not own customers or potential revenue
Again, you can use whatever definitions you want. You can claim "harm" requires "intent" if you want. So if I was just meaning to clean the gun and accidentally shot you in the face, I didn't "harm" you. You were rushed to the hospital "unharmed". But that doesn't mean anyone else is going to abide by that definition.
It is for this reason I am inclined to utilize the most precise terms according to their most commonly and widely defined meanings, giving particular attention to the most common reference point (i.e. dictionaries). But you can do whatever you want.
Again, I disagree. Again, Alice has already demonstrated that physical force is okay with her. She has in a sense permitted the use of force in her regard. She has no "right" to go back and claim "rights" were violated, as that would be inconsistent. The doctrine of estoppel "estops" or prevents you from asserting a position in a legal proceeding that is inconsistent with something you had done previously.
So to claim that you "violated Alice's rights" is incorrect in my view.
But here again, you can pretend "violating" "rights" "damage" and any of those other words mean whatever you want them to, so I'm not completely sure there is a point in arguing.
FlyingAxe:The idea that by aggressing Alice implicitly says that there is nothing wrong with aggression is novel, however.
No it isn't.
Various forms/applications of the estoppel doctrine can be found as far back as the 16th century (at least). There may very well be earlier instances I don't know about. I haven't really looked into it.
Even if Alice has demonstrated that she disagrees that aggression is wrong, why does that give us right to aggress against her?
Because again, you have to be consistent.
Stephan Kinsella:
The libertarian approach is a very symmetrical one: the non-aggression principle does not rule out force, but only the initiation of force. In other words, you are permitted to use force only in response to some else's use of force. If they do not use force you may not use force yourself. There is a symmetry here: force for force, but no force if no force was used. In law school I learned about the concept of estoppel, which is a legal doctrine that estops or prevents you from asserting a position in a legal proceeding that is inconsistent with something you had done previously. You have to be consistent.
I was at this time fascinated with Hoppe's argumentation ethics, which is probably why it struck me that the basic reasoning of legal estoppel could be used to explain or justify the libertarian approach to symmetry in force: The reason you are permitted to use force against someone who himself initiated force is that he has already in a sense admitted that he thinks force is permissible, by his act of aggression. Therefore if he were to complain if the victim or the victim's agents were to try to use defensive or even retaliatory force against him, he would be holding inconsistent positions: His pro-force view that is implicit and inherent in his act of aggression and his anti-force view implicit in his objection to being punished. Using language borrowed from the law, we might say he should be "estopped" from complaining if a victim were to use force to defend himself from the aggressor or even to punish or retaliate against the aggressor. I tried to work this into a theory of libertarian rights, relying heavily on insights from Hoppe's argumentation ethics and from his social theory in general.
"Allowed"?
Allowed = permitted. (As I used it.) As in:
In other words, you are permitted to use force only in response to some else's use of force.
How far can you go?
"Allowed/permitted" as in, under libertarian ethics? Or general morality? Or something else? This is a fuzzy area by its nature, but it's even worse when one uses ambiguous terms in even more ambiguous contexts (particularly one who seems to be content to assume definitions which are not widely held and not consistent with any dictionary).
P.S.
I assume by the neglect to respond to the rest of my post directly addressing your points that you agree with what I've stated?
Cops shot him.
Worst case: same would occur in an Anarcho-Capitalist Society, just that the cops would have been some other entity rather than government.
Would not the street owner or property owner have some say in the matter too? Their security probably would have done a better job of defending the victim.
Also, in an ANCAP society the cannibal would have used cocaine, heroine or meth instead of bath salts, if you believe that reasoning. He'd also have a better handle on his addiction.
FlyingAxe, these are excellent questions and your responses are thoughtful. I think that John is smart, and his analysis correct, but his manner is quite arrogant and rude. Don't let him rile you, I am genuinely interested in what you are saying here.
Hang on John,
You also neglected to respond to all of flyinaxe's points as well. What is up with the arogant tone? You don't answer the questions half as much as you level personal aspersions about Flyingaxe's intelligence. I am a long time mises.org fan, I try to read and understand as much as I can, Flyingaxe is obviously asking legitimate questions, you are not even trying to answer them, but instead seem bent on winning some sort of psychic victory or something. I would be incredibly intimidated to ask a question with you lurking around here, especially if I was new to the Austro-Libertarian paradigm. Please lighten up and respond with some careful thought towards crafting a civil as well as logically consistent response.
I agree with Ethan, FlyingAxe. They're good questions, and those are the exact scenarios I thought about when questioning it. I think this has a chance to be a good, objective thread. It's an interesting case, one I never expected to hear about, so I'm curious to see the interpretations.
Ethan:You don't answer the questions half as much as you level personal aspersions about Flyingaxe's intelligence
Please alert me to any questions I neglected to address. I'd be happy to address them
I would also enjoy reading where I leveled any "aspersions" of anyone's intelligence.
Flyingaxe is obviously asking legitimate questions, you are not even trying to answer them,
I'm not?
Well that sucks. I thought I was trying. I mean, at least, I was trying to try. And what's more, I thought I answered virtually every one of them. But it's good to hear you can know what I'm "trying" to do. Might come in handy. You can be a good back up to assure others if what they think they are trying to do is really what they are actually trying to do. What other mind reading tricks can you perform?
Attempting to rationalistically predict exactly what would come about in a free society is part of what Hayek dubbed 'the fatal conceit'. I suppose from past customs we can guess that the reactions would range from the instant death of the cannibal to the exile of the cannibal as an outlaw.
I basically agree with what you said, but I didn't think anyone here was trying to predict what would come about. I assumed triknighted was simply asking for general ideas on how it might be handled.
And I've never heard the notion that Hayek was ever talking about the potential of a free society when using the term "fatal conceit". As far as I know, all he was ever referring to was the conceit of central planners...that they have all the knowledge necessary to run the economy. Indeed, is Nobel Laureate Lecture was titled "The Pretence of Knowledge".
Sure, I was just emphasising the necessary ignorance of the outcome and wide range of responses to the scenario.
As for 'the fatal conceit', it can refer to any 'constructivistic' basis of organising society.
From Chapter 4 of The Fatal Conceit on what Hayek refers to as constructivism:
"1) The idea that it is unreasonable to follow what one cannot justify scientifically or prove observationally (Monod, Born). 2) The idea that it is unreasonable to follow what one does not understand. This notion is implicit in all our examples, but I must confess that I too once held it, and have also been able to find it in a philosopher with whom I generally agree. Thus Sir Karl Popper once claimed (1948/63:122; emphasis added) that rationalist thinkers `will not submit blindly to any tradition', which is of course just as impossible as obeying no tradition. This must, however, have been a slip of the pen, for elsewhere he has rightly observed that `we never know what we are talking about' (1974/1976:27, on which see also Bartley, 1985/1987). (Though the free man will insist on his right to examine and, when appropriate, to reject any tradition, he could not live among other people if he refused to accept countless traditions without even thinking about them, and of whose effects he remains ignorant.) 3) The related idea that it is unreasonable to follow a particular course unless its purpose is fully specified in advance (Einstein, Russell, Keynes). 4) The idea, also closely related, that it is unreasonable to do anything unless its effects are not only fully known in advance but also fully observable and seen to be beneficial (the utilitarians). (Assumptions 2, 3, and 4, are, despite their different emphases, nearly identical; but I have distinguished them here to call attention to the fact that the arguments for them turn, depending on who is defending them, either on lack of understandability generally, or, more particularly, on lack of specified purpose or lack of complete and observable knowledge of effects.)"
Do you remember in a thread a while ago I was pointing out that Mises was more of a central planner than Hayek in this regard? It is because of the former's argument for the minimal state on a rationalistic basis.