He didn't kill anyone directly, he just persuaded others to kill. But is that a crime? Once I thought it is, now not so much. What do you think?
Why do you think that? If I hire a hitman to whack someone, am I not using the hitman as my weapon?
Sure, the hitman may decide not to do it, but why is that relevant? If I try to shoot you, the gun might jam.
But can you refer to people as rational agents and suddenly consider them "weapons"? Don't people have their own will? Why should responsibility for a crime by divided? I feel that the person who actually used violence should be the sole criminal. Sure his upbrining may have contributed, sure his friends have contributed, sure the victim has contributed, sure someone else (who maybe payed him) contributed to the muder, but are they all responsible for it? I don't think so. There is only one person responsible.
No, because the outcome would not have been the same had he not been the Sovereign of Nazi Germany.
If you break it down that far, then the bullets are the ones responsible. The people who actually carried the orders are as much to blame as Hitler, but Hitler was not innocent IMO.
The bullets can't be blamed, they are not rational agents.
So, basically what you're saying is, as long as I can find a way to make my aggression indirect, I'm completely absolved of any charges of unethical behavior. Yeah, that makes perfect sense.
I think he was slightly guilty at least. I say slightly because he seemed to have done everything he did according to his conscience but it's just that his conscience was wrong. Of course he could've sought moral instruction in the Church when he was a boy (he was a Catholic in a Catholic country, Austria). But who knows about his personal religious life and the many variables that could've swayed him one way or another?
How culpable was "the leader" for killing all those people? I would say probably slightly (but obviously don't take my word for it).
Why slightly? If the chain of command led up to him, which it did, then he's responsible for issuing orders to issue orders to issue orders to commit murder. Doing something on a grand scale through a system doesn't erase the action. If anything it multiplies the immorality.
The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger
I say that Hitler was morally a terrible person, because he used his charimsa to persuade others to kill many innocent people. However I do not think he is criminally liable, that is, violence should not be used against him, as he himself did not use violence.
The responsibility isn't divided... It's multiplied to whoever was responsible.
What if one guy supplies materials, another builds a bomb, another transports it to the target, another sets the phone detonator, and another triggers the bomb by calling it? Why is only one person responsible? Who, exactly, is responsible?
What if the guy who calls the number doesn't realise who he is calling, i.e. was set up?
Of course you can act through the instrumentality of another... Do you also believe that someone doesn't deserve any credit for designing a complex machine, but only the person who follows the instructions and puts it together? Probably a robot...
He definitely should be ostracized, and derided, but not physically harmed.
ok, Eugene, you made your point. But the vast majority of anarcho-libertarians would disagree with you. End of story.
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
Morally? He wanted alot of people killed. And gave orders to do it. Morally, he may have felt satisfaction at the deaths of innocent people.
So, morally, he is not a good person.
Eugene:I say that Hitler was morally a terrible person, because he used his charimsa to persuade others to kill many innocent people. However I do not think he is criminally liable, that is, violence should not be used against him, as he himself did not use violence.
You said "innocent". Now you're calling his victims "innocent" people. Either you have no idea what you're even saying, or you have a very flexible definition of that word.
And again, you're saying so long as I find a way to make my aggression indirect, I'm "innocent", yes? Just like Jigsaw? How about I just set up a trap for you, which you voluntarily walk into. It was your choice. You didn't have to go through that door. I didn't use any violence. I just happened to think the space right above the door was a perfect place for my anvil. And I just happen to like using ropes that give way when doors open.
Eugene: He didn't kill anyone directly, he just persuaded others to kill. But is that a crime? Once I thought it is, now not so much. What do you think?
Compare this to the wife that secretly kills her husband. She doesn't threaten her husband verbally. However, Hitler actually threatened people, not simply ordered the murders. In the HItler case, he definitely has obviously not innocent, so it was a bad example. Your question make more sense using the example of the wife.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Jargon:Why slightly? If the chain of command led up to him, which it did, then he's responsible for issuing orders to issue orders to issue orders to commit murder. Doing something on a grand scale through a system doesn't erase the action. If anything it multiplies the immorality.
He was the cause of other's deaths, that is true, but is he morally responsible? I think that (and on further reflection this is problematic) he is at best, a little responsible, because he doesn't have a per se intention to do wrong -he honestly believed and ( if I read Mein Kampf correctly) always thought, that Jews (and others) should be killed.
Now is Hitler's ignorance culpable or not? That's a question that I don't think I have the data to give my answer (such that it is).
No, I do not absolve indirection, but it is not idirection when another person is involved. People have free will, so you can't "use them as a weapon". This just doesn't make sense.
In regards to Hitler, he couldn't threaten anyone, because no one could credibly believe that Hitler is capable of physically harming anyone.
Eugene:No, I do not absolve indirection, but it is not idirection when another person is involved. People have free will, so you can't "use them as a weapon". This just doesn't make sense.
Gee. Eugene moving the goal posts. You should see my big surprised face.
First you ask if Hitler was innocent, and the very first part of your rationale begins "He didn't kill anyone directly, he just persuaded others to kill." Now you're telling me it's not indirect if another person is involved. Hitler's innocent, his victims are innocent, Hitler didn't kill anyone directly, but they weren't killed thanks to him indirectly either.
You really should think about this a little more.
Forget it, Eugene. Not even libertarians are buying this one.
Is a shooter a criminal? He didn't actually kill someone, the bullet did.
He intentionally set off a chain of events which did, and he believed would, result in the deaths of other individuals.
He's not only a criminal, he's a monster.
Maybe I didn't explain myself well. Hitler is definitely morally horrible, but it wouldn't be just to apply violence against him, since he did not use violence himself.
You can't use a person as a weapon, because a rational actor has a will. Therefore setting a trap might be indirection for which I do not absolve, but pursuation is not indirection in the sense that it is not even related to crime. Whenever a rational actor is part of the chain of events, the chain breaks, and another chain opens.
It might be helpful to look at the thread that already exists in which this discussion already took place. (In fact, it would be helpful if you looked back through the forum before posting any thread...as nearly every one you've started is an essential repeat where you just change a couple of terms...some even being repeats of your own past threads)
of course Holocaust never happened, so Hitler is truly innocent.
I read every thread about this, and I think I agree with Merlin on that particular one. However I am still looking for good counter arguments.
"You can't use a person as a weapon, because a rational actor has a will."
Why can't you use someone with a will as a weapon? They are still perfectly accountable (depending upon the threat to them) for their actions, but so is the man who ordered the killings. They would not have died had he not ordered the killing, he used others as a weapon of force against the victim just as he would a gun. The fact that these people have wills to merely adds an extra level of blame to the problem like two people pulling the same trigger at the same time would.
Neodoxy:They would not have died had he not ordered the killing, he used others as a weapon of force against the victim just as he would a gun.
Careful there. If you're going to go that far, where do you draw the line? Suppose I wrote a book saying that all thieves should be killed...and someone is convinced by my words and goes on a shooting spree. "They would not have died" if not for my book. Sounds to me like you're saying I have blood on my hands.
For more fun, let's assume I didn't even say anything about killing. What if I just wrote a book about how reprehensible it was to steal. I didn't advocate any violence, I just talked about how bad acts of theft were...and someone was inspired to kill because they were convinced thieves were evil, entirely due to what I wrote. Again, "they would not have died", but for my words. My fault?
What if I wrote "peace to all the Earth, and glory be to God" and someone interpreted that to mean every living thing should be killed, since that's the only true way to have peace.
You're walking a dangerous path here.
I think people are a bit too tied up defending their side instead of carrying out Eugene's own logic to its pointless conclusion:
Alright, Eugene. Assume that ordering the death of others is not illegal. Hence, it is an "allowable" social action. Hence, it can be a means of solving perceived problems in society.
Now, Hitler is supposedly not unethical but highly displeasing. Solution? We hire a hitman to kill him in turn. See what we did there? We carried out the same exact punishment while staying within the bounds of ethics.
Hence, your idea is pointless as it leads to the same conclusion.
What if Hitler was considered unethical? What then? What if it was considered immoral to purposefully persuade someone to act out aggression, how should someone who does so be punished? Or should they?
I ascribe to the idea that causation is as bad as the crime, and hence whatever the punishment for the actual action is is the same punishment for directly inciting that action. In this case, I might suggest lifelong servitude.
@John James
Law itself is a dangerous path, but one that we must travel.
I can understand your concern, but the fact is that one cannot deny that the reasons for certain deaths are in part because of concious decisions of men to kill someone. A mafia boss is certainly the reason that a number of men are killed or stolen from. Mere interpretation does not matter in the same way that someone stepping on secret panel that causes someone's house to explode doesn't matter. Someone cannot be held accountable if there isn't a totally understandable and predictable reason why it is that one's action would result in death or crime against someone.
Talking about an act doesn't mean that one is commanding the person to do it, there are obvious differences between commanding someone to do something with good reason to believe that it will come to pass with your command and simply talking about it. One which any judge is likely to understand (if they don't we're going to have problems of a sort no matter what the law is)
If I write 'peace and love to all' and somone interpreted it to mean 'kill your wife and family' then how could I be held accountable? Those words obviously don't mean that and weren't used in a context that could suggest that to a normal person. If that is a crime then so must an act of inadvertant murder or crime which could not have been predicted. The difference between what I wrote and a gang boss saying 'go and kill person X' are very obvious.
Neodoxy:Law itself is a dangerous path, but one that we must travel.
What does that even mean?
Fine. "You're overstepping." Even if it's just due to poor wording.
Someone cannot be held accountable if there isn't a totally understandable and predictable reason why it is that one's action would result in death or crime against someone.
As understandable by whom? Predictable according to whom?
If I write 'peace and love to all' and somone interpreted it to mean 'kill your wife and family' then how could I be held accountable? Those words obviously don't mean that and weren't used in a context that could suggest that to a normal person.
Obviously?
If that is a crime then so must an act of inadvertant murder or crime which could not have been predicted. The difference between what I wrote and a gang boss saying 'go and kill person X' are very obvious.
So for you the whole thing is just a matter of interpretation. I could simply say "x should be shot", but it would just be up to your feelings to determine whether or not I should be held responsible if x does in fact get shot.
"You're walking a dangerous path here."
"What does that even mean?"
"As understandable by whom? Predictable according to whom?"
"So for you the whole thing is just a matter of interpretation. I could simply say "x should be shot", but it would just be up to your feelings to determine whether or not I should be held responsible if x does in fact get shot."
Neodoxy:Law is dangerous because we allow one group of people control over another group of people
It's not that simple. At least not in a stateless society.
It depends, is there reason to believe that you have sway and influence over the person you're talking to? Is there reason to believe he would actually do it? If you say it to me go and kill X then I'm obviously not going to. If I'm unstable, I hate person X and you give me a gun, you hold sigificant sway over me, and you command me to do it certainly I'd say that you're at least partially responsible for his death.
I said it on a stage. During a speech.
But I don't even know why that's relevant. The way you put it, what matters is the fact that "they would not have died". My point was, if that's your litmus test, there's a lot of guilty people out there. I mean, after all...that hurricane wouldn't have existed if that butterfly hadn't fluttered its wings.
all law is merely a matter of interpretation.
Again, if you want to be that blanketed, you could just as easily say "life merely a matter of interpretation."
Hitler instituted conscription in 1935.
"It's not that simple. At least not in a stateless society."
"Again, if you want to be that blanketed, you could just as easily say "life merely a matter of interpretation.""
Neodoxy:Once again, I understand what you mean but the fact is that these people couldn't have forseen such an outcome.
What people? And how do you presume to tell others what they could have foreseen? Again, it's just a matter of what you think? A preacher in Florida says "all I did was burn some books." ...and you get to come back and say "you should have foreseen that those Muslims halfway around the world would storm into the UN and murder 20 people (beheading two of them). You know how crazy they are. You spend a lot of time preaching about it. Those victims 'would not have died' had you not burned those books. You are responsible."
And? If you're looking for an absolute black and white answer from me you're not going to get it because one does not exist.
That was my whole point. You're the one who just said "All law is a matter of interpretation", as if that gets anyone anywhere. If you're going to be that vague and cryptic, you might as well just say: "Life is just a matter of interpretation. Are you even alive? Is anyone? I can't be sure. You may think I killed that man, but that's just your interpretation."
You might go discuss this with this guy.
"What people? And how do you presume to tell others what they could have foreseen? "
Because it's pretty straightforward to know when someone does and does not know whether or not their actions will directly result in force being used against someone else's death. Do you think think that Hitler didn't know that the jews would be slaughtered at his command? Do you think that a mafia boss doesn't know that because of what he ordered to occur people will be harmed?
In a free society it's hard to see a situation where people would lean to the point of 'oh well he should have known' rather than 'we don't know whether he could have known' for obvious reasons. Your own reluctance and fear of the matter helps to vindicate this.
"That was my whole point. You're the one who just said "All law is a matter of interpretation", as if that gets anyone anywhere. If you're going to be that vague and cryptic, you might as well just say: "Life is just a matter of interpretation. Are you even alive? Is anyone? I can't be sure. You may think I killed that man, but that's just your interpretation.""
What about intentions? Should we not determine hitler's intentions to determine his guilt?
Unless either his intentions are perfectly discovereable from his actions or perhaps we need only know that he purposefully/consciously did what he did
I'm not really sure intentions matter. I'm sure that some statists have the best of intentions with their programs, but we know better.
Causation, not intention, matters. Of course, if the victim decides that intention is important as well, then good for them. But for the purposes of ceteris paribus justice, causation.
Germany under Hitler was a totalitarian state. A top down heirachy coupled with the state monopoly on force with Hitler giving orders makes him culpable. He gives you an order to gas those in your camp who can no longer work. If you refuse you the SS throws you into the gas chamber. Without the order being issued people are not being gassed or lined up next to a ditch and shot in the head.