Alabama man throws his kids off a bridge

 A guy in Alabama had thrown a couple of his kids off of a bridge:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7185646.stm

He didn't murder them. The water did because they couldn't swim on their own -- the same way that abandoning children leaves to their death because they can't survive on their own.

Under market anarchism, how would these kids' lives have been protected? Since they are not free to make contracts and all rights are protected by contracts, children under Anarchy have no rights until they're old enough to defend them with violence.

Now, you could establish a Constitution that makes there be a responsibility to care for children -- but then that goes against Rothbardian nonsense -- although it's something John Locke himself supported.

Nathyn:

 Since they are not free to make contracts and all rights are protected by contracts,

 

Wrong on both counts. 

Nathyn:

He didn't murder them. The water did because they couldn't swim on their own -- the same way that abandoning children leaves to their death because they can't survive on their own.

I shot someone in the head. I didn't murder them. The bullet did because they couldn't subsist without a brain.

Nathyn:

Now, you could establish a Constitution that makes there be a responsibility to care for children -- but then that goes against Rothbardian nonsense -- although it's something John Locke himself supported.

Now, I would say, that by having a child you enter into a contract that makes it your responsiblity to care for them or quarentee their well-being since, as everyone knows, children are unable to care for themselves until certain age.

Nathyn:

Under market anarchism, how would these kids' lives have been protected?

Under our current system with the Department of Social Services, Health and Human Services, et al, how were they protected?

xahrx:

Nathyn:

Under market anarchism, how would these kids' lives have been protected?

Under our current system with the Department of Social Services, Health and Human Services, et al, how were they protected?

yea, who taught them to swim???

So now throwing someone into water, off a bridge, against their will, is not an attempt to murder them? Good to know.

 First you need to understand the difference between nominal and real prices, then we can discuss your (in)ability to grasp the finer points concerning market Anarchy. 

How come 9 times out of 10 when I wonder and ask myself who made such a thread before opening it I know who made it?

 Niccolo's answer is also perfectly acceptable and I endorse it.

Another acknowledged never having read Keynes' General Theory. Read Mises before Keynes is just poor scholarship. 

http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=96503

 

Considering the one achieved his doctorates in one of the most prestigious universities for economics of his time, and the other didn't last a year with educated men in the field, only a complete imbecile from a community college puking out the pure quantity theory of money (a century after its demise) and delivering to us laughable quotes like these,

 

economic growth in and of itself causes a drop in the price of money (inflation)

the demand for money reflects the demand for goods and services, and so one increases, they both do.

 could get things SO ar/se-backwards.

 

OH MAN! Nathyn, do yourself a favor and switch to something easier than economics... Like prob. and stats.  

Chapters of Fatal  Blindness - On-line by Fulton Huxtable

Chapter 4. In the Name of the Children

Most people would say that if you do something to a person, and that action has a worse than normal consequence for that person because of some pre-existing feature of that person, then accountability for the worse than normal consequence lies with the person who committed to invasive act.

In other words, let's say I see Eric Lindros in an alley, and I bonk him on the head with a mallet.  The strength of my bonk would not have caused significant harm to a normal person; perhaps they would have been annoyed, but no real harm would have been done.  However, since Lindros is a concussion-prone guy, my mallet strike gives him a concussion.  Even though my act would not have normally caused a concussion, it still seems like I should be held accountable for the concussion Lindros sustained as a result of my action.  In the same way, throwing someone off a bridge might not usually result in their death.  But if you throw someone off a bridge, and they drow because they can't swim, then it seems like you're the one to blame for the death.

I'm not sure why an anarcho-capitalistic order would not recognize that this was the case.  What would be done about this sort of thing in anarcho-capitalism is up for debate.  But it doesn't seem like there would be anything particularly difficult about this kind of situation which wouldn't be equally problematic for dealing with your typical garden-variety murders.  

xahrx:

Nathyn:

Under market anarchism, how would these kids' lives have been protected?

Under our current system with the Department of Social Services, Health and Human Services, et al, how were they protected?

The man was arrested, he'll be given life in prison (as opposed to being executed or made a slave), and the rest of his wife's kids are still alive.

pairunoyd:

xahrx:

Nathyn:

Under market anarchism, how would these kids' lives have been protected?

Under our current system with the Department of Social Services, Health and Human Services, et al, how were they protected?

yea, who taught them to swim???

To my knowledge, actually, the government does sometimes subsidize groups like the YMCA. They certainly do so through making non-profits tax-exempt and they provide swimming classes. Through what you call "wealth distribution" to pregnant and nursing mothers (see Mothers' Rights) they are able to afford making sure their children have enough to survive.

Also, keep in mind, I'm not making the emotional argument, "For the children."

I'm saying that not caring about the deaths of children is evil, the rights of children to be free from death or abuse by their parents is an individual right, and Rothbard was evil for opposing it. His book, "The Ethics of Liberty," could just as easily have been called, "The Evil of Liberty." No actual different citations need to be made. You just need to take a careful look at his sources and his silly arguments.

Inquisitor:

So now throwing someone into water, off a bridge, against their will, is not an attempt to murder them? Good to know.

One of them was old enough to swim, I think. Is it not attempted murder to dump your kid in the woods?

Also, whether it's murder or not is not the issue here: We all agree this is immoral, right?

The question is: Should it be illegal to drop your kid in a river, dump them off in the woods, and so on? Why should it matter whether they be killed instantly from drowning as opposed to being killed in the near future, by starvation or being eaten by a wild animal?

Niccolò:

 First you need to understand the difference between nominal and real prices, then we can discuss your (in)ability to grasp the finer points concerning market Anarchy.

I do. You need to understand the difference between nominal and real freedom.

Junker:

Chapters of Fatal  Blindness - On-line by Fulton Huxtable


Chapter 4. In the Name of the Children

America = Hitler? Also, "Fulton Huxtable" is clearly a fake name. Some tinfoil-hat conspiracy theorist who won't even use his real name isn't worth reading.

Can't you guys use better sources than Youtube and Loose Change?

Donny with an A:

Most people would say that if you do something to a person, and that action has a worse than normal consequence for that person because of some pre-existing feature of that person, then accountability for the worse than normal consequence lies with the person who committed to invasive act.

In other words, let's say I see Eric Lindros in an alley, and I bonk him on the head with a mallet.  The strength of my bonk would not have caused significant harm to a normal person; perhaps they would have been annoyed, but no real harm would have been done.  However, since Lindros is a concussion-prone guy, my mallet strike gives him a concussion.  Even though my act would not have normally caused a concussion, it still seems like I should be held accountable for the concussion Lindros sustained as a result of my action.  In the same way, throwing someone off a bridge might not usually result in their death.  But if you throw someone off a bridge, and they drow because they can't swim, then it seems like you're the one to blame for the death.

I'm not sure why an anarcho-capitalistic order would not recognize that this was the case.  What would be done about this sort of thing in anarcho-capitalism is up for debate.  But it doesn't seem like there would be anything particularly difficult about this kind of situation which wouldn't be equally problematic for dealing with your typical garden-variety murders. 

Bingo.

Nathyn:

The man was arrested, he'll be given life in prison (as opposed to being executed or made a slave), and the rest of his wife's kids are still alive.

That is not protection. 

 

I look at the question posed in the opening post  Under market anarchism, how would these kids' lives have been protected? and I wonder if market anarchism must protect them.  Market anarchism will probably lead to better protection due to well defined property rights.  

 

The way I look at this event is by asking:  

Where did this event occur?  

and

Who owns that land?  

 

Therefore, under market anarchy, I would expect that the owner of the bridge and the river would likely supervise their property.  It would not make sense for them to let people freely act recklessly on their property.  

 

 

Nathyn:

Niccolò:

 First you need to understand the difference between nominal and real prices, then we can discuss your (in)ability to grasp the finer points concerning market Anarchy.

I do. You need to understand the difference between nominal and real freedom.

 

Do you?

Nathyn:

 

Your charts above show changes in the absolute value of money, not its nominal value (aka "real" value) which is what's most important if you're a marginalist, which the Austrians claim to be.

 

In economics, the nominal values of something are its money values in different years. Real values adjust for differences in the price level in those years. Examples include a bundle of commodities, such as gross domestic product, and income. For a series of nominal values in successive years, different values could be because of differences in the price level, an index of prices. But nominal values do not specify how much of the difference is from changes in the price level. Real values remove this ambiguity. Real values convert the nominal values as if prices were constant in each year of the series. Any differences in real values are then attributed to differences in quantities of the bundle or differences in the amount of goods that the money incomes could buy in each year. Thus, the real values index the quantities of the commodity bundle or the purchasing power of the money incomes for each year in the series. The nominal/real value distinction can apply not only to time-series data, as above, but to cross-section data varying by region or householder characteristics. Nominal values are related to prices and quantities (P and Q) and to real values by the following definitions: nominal value = P•Q = P•real value.

wiki.com

 
Now, Nathyn, it's time to run off and play with your fellow "political geniuses" and leave the actual thinking to students.

Throwing kids off a bridge with the hope that they'll drown is considered murder (or attempted murder) in our present society and could just as easily be considered murder (or attempted) in any anarcho-capitalist society. Are you seriously trying to say that this father is not violating the non-aggression axiom? That you think natural rights libertarians sanction this type of behavior? I have to ask, did you think about this for at least 1-2 minutes before posting it? Abandoning a young child in the woods is also murder/attempted. It is an act of fraud because it is a violation of contract. Let's say that Pa takes little Johnny out "camping" and then drives off without Johnny when he isn't looking. Little Johnny was under the impression that Pa was going to stay with him, though it wasn't written out on paper and signed. Thus Pa is guilty of fraud for making little Johnny think that he would go on a safe camping trip with Pa's protection. I'm not sure if this is what Rothbard believed but its what I believe. I have some disagreements with Rothbard myself but all you're doing in this thread is absurdly redefining the concept of aggression to try and say that Rothbard was OK with murdering children.

Nathyn:

One of them was old enough to swim, I think. Is it not attempted murder to dump your kid in the woods?

Also, whether it's murder or not is not the issue here: We all agree this is immoral, right?

The question is: Should it be illegal to drop your kid in a river, dump them off in the woods, and so on? Why should it matter whether they be killed instantly from drowning as opposed to being killed in the near future, by starvation or being eaten by a wild animal?

 

Was it immoral for a man to forcefully throw children that happened to be from his loin into a river to die? Yes, of course!

Is it immoral for a man to neglect children that happen to be from his loin? Not necessarily.

 

The difference here is a direct infringement of property rights. On the one hand, the man forcefully threw his children off a bridge with the intent of watching them drown. It doesn't take a "political genius" to understand that concept, does it?  

Your intent on speaking ill of the dead, i.e. Rothbard, without him able to defend himself is certainly admirable, after all, this is what we come to expect from "political geniuses," but you're clearly misrepresenting the facts.

 
A. You can roll your eyes all you like, but the fact remains that forcing human beings to be chained to other human beings that happen to share similar DNA strands is a form of enslavement. If you choose to be enslaved by social concepts nailed on your thick, little skull, that's fine, but when you explain things to people logically, we like to do something called taking the variable to its logical ends.

B.  As a parent I can tell you, very, very, very few parents actually engage in some form of abuse, and even fewer abandon their children. Arguing that a state needs to exist to protect so few people at the expense of everyone else really doesn't seem Pareto-Optimal to me.

 
C. The alternative to the arrangement is worse than leaving the children out in the wild. When the neglected and abused are left with the option of the government intervening in front of the public to scold them, only making things worse behind closed doors, or the option of joining a government, concentration camp for kids, the proposition of a state doesn't seem to fix the issue. 

Nathyn:

I'm saying that not caring about the deaths of children is evil, the rights of children to be free from death or abuse by their parents is an individual right, and Rothbard was evil for opposing it. His book, "The Ethics of Liberty," could just as easily have been called, "The Evil of Liberty." No actual different citations need to be made. You just need to take a careful look at his sources and his silly arguments.

As opposed to your idiotic ones? I don't recall Rothbard saying anywhere that abusing children is alright - quite the opposite. Rothbard did not believe positive obligations to children existed on part of parents, and thus one may disassociate with them. I part ways with him here, but I don't see how this makes him "evil". 

One of them was old enough to swim, I think. Is it not attempted murder to dump your kid in the woods?

Also, whether it's murder or not is not the issue here: We all agree this is immoral, right?

The question is: Should it be illegal to drop your kid in a river, dump them off in the woods, and so on? Why should it matter whether they be killed instantly from drowning as opposed to being killed in the near future, by starvation or being eaten by a wild animal?

The question is, how is throwing someone off a bridge with the intention of killing them analogous to disassociating with someone towards which you have no obligations whatsoever (Rothbard's actual argument)?

Nathyn:

Under market anarchism, how would these kids' lives have been protected? Since they are not free to make contracts and all rights are protected by contracts, children under Anarchy have no rights until they're old enough to defend them with violence.

"Applying our [libertarian] theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children...The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child..." ("The Ethics of Liberty," M. Rothbard, p. 100). How does this case reflect a contradiction to the Rothbardian theory? A Constitution which requires a state apparatus for its creation, yes that is anti-Rothbardian. But to say that the absolute theory of property rights does not also apply to children according to Rothbard-libertarianism just does not make sense. That is the whole point of his theory, that it should apply equally to everyone. Perhaps also reading "Society Without a State," also by Rothbard (1975), would help alleviate any doubts you may have about the libertarian justice system. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard133.html)

Nathyn:

Also, whether it's murder or not is not the issue here: We all agree this is immoral, right?

"Again, whether or not a parent has a moral rather than a legally enforceable obligation to keep his child alive is a completely separate question." ("The Ethics of Liberty," M. Rothbard, pp. 100-101) Another reading of this book might be necessary for you, or at least the chapter on Children and Rights particularly for this thread.

The question is not whether it would be wrong. The question is what incentive a justice company would have in prosecuting the man if it's for-profit. 

Jared:

The question is not whether it would be wrong. The question is what incentive a justice company would have in prosecuting the man if it's for-profit. 

The incentive would come from any justice company's client pressing charges. In the case of the father throwing his children from a bridge to their death, the person pressing charges might be the mother, who rightfully shares joint guardianship with the father, or the company itself fulfilling its own responsibility to act on behalf of its former clients, the children, and/or their legal representative(s), who would probably include the mother. If there were no one to accuse the father of murder or aggression, then there would more than likely be no punishment for the crime. Also, we can't forget that in this case the mother might also seek vengeance against the father on her own, thereby circumventing courts and justice companies altogether, saving money in the process and eliminating the need for finding profit-seeking corporate motives. Of course, by doing so, the mother risks inciting legal action against herself by the father's parents or anyone else that would seek charges against her for doing so, etc.

Nathyn:

The man was arrested, he'll be given life in prison (as opposed to being executed or made a slave), and the rest of his wife's kids are still alive.

I repeat my question: Under our current system with the Department of Social Services, Health and Human Services, et al, how were they protected?  Unless I'm missing something seriously significant, such as proof of everlasting life, the children who would have been so neglected in an anarcho capitalist system are just as dead now as they were when you first asked the question.  So stop trying to change the focus and answer a damn question for once: How are the two dead children better off now than they would be under anarcho capitalism?

Are you implying that murder shouldn't be punished at all, since the victims won't be made any better off? 

Donny with an A:

Are you implying that murder shouldn't be punished at all, since the victims won't be made any better off?

I do not think that is a fair question at all because there is physically NOTHING that can be done to improve the lot of a dead victim. 

Thus, what he or anybody else is implying is irrelevant at best.  

fronzai:

Nathyn:

Under market anarchism, how would these kids' lives have been protected? Since they are not free to make contracts and all rights are protected by contracts, children under Anarchy have no rights until they're old enough to defend them with violence.

"Applying our [libertarian] theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children...The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child..." ("The Ethics of Liberty," M. Rothbard, p. 100). How does this case reflect a contradiction to the Rothbardian theory? A Constitution which requires a state apparatus for its creation, yes that is anti-Rothbardian. But to say that the absolute theory of property rights does not also apply to children according to Rothbard-libertarianism just does not make sense. That is the whole point of his theory, that it should apply equally to everyone. Perhaps also reading "Society Without a State," also by Rothbard (1975), would help alleviate any doubts you may have about the libertarian justice system. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard133.html)

It's self-contradictory.

"Not keeping your child alive" is murder.

If there were no one to accuse the father of murder or aggression, then there would more than likely be no punishment for the crime.

Depends - someone else could still go after the individual and take them to a court (a bit like "homesteading" the abandoned claim, something Nozick discusses at length in ASU.)

Very well put, Byzantine.

I've mentioned before about contracts. Couldn't communities have contracts that lists basic expectations of neighbors, e.g., Thou shalt not drop your children off an 80 ft bridge? If an individual w/i that community refused to agree to community contracts they would experience varying levels of discrimination, depending upon the contract(s) not agreed to. If a person refuses to sign the most basic contract, one that binds them not to commit 'murder', 99.9% of the community would refuse to trade with them. You gotta trade to live. Plus, landowners w/i a community would feel pressured to make sure anyone they trade land with and 'bring into' the community signs said contract(s) before trading w/ them or risk the same level of ostracization. In fact, part of the community contract might involve only selling to those that agree to at least the most basic contracts. If the child killer was a party to the 'anti-murder' contract he would be investigated by the justice company and be subject to the terms he agreed to if found guilty.

pairunoyd:

I've mentioned before about contracts. Couldn't communities have contracts that lists basic expectations of neighbors, e

 

That is not a contract. Contracts are legal transfers of ownership or use. If I sign a paper that reads, " I will not killed pairunoyd" that is a promise not a contract. I can not forfeit the right to kill you, because I never had it.

Murder is a property right dispute. I am not safe from murder because I go around collecting promises from people. I am safe because the legal system(ie the institutionalization of property rights) recognizes my claim of self ownership.

Thanks Jon.

So if I drew up a 'contract' that said, "I will trade with you if you agree NOT to do the following to said parties: murder, rape...if you violate this agreement you agree to subject yourself to said process (system of justice, retribution, etc)...." that's erroneous? What about the idea of 'social contracts'?

But you do at times have the right to kill another person, correct? I understand what you're saying about 'never had the right', ie natural rights. I think. I'm not playing devil's advocate. I really am that thick. :) I just really find the ideas at the Mises forums intriguing.

Nathyn:

"Not keeping your child alive" is murder.

I don't know if you ever 'got in on it', but what do you think about procreation being murder? A child canNOT, canNOT die unless you bring him into existence TO die. Of course, you could appeal to 'accidental death'. You could offer mitigating circumstances surrounding the impregnation, but I could also see wreckless endangerment as a possiblity.

I only thought about this a few weeks ago because of the argument against God due to evil, about his knowing evil would exist, yet he created us anyway. But man also knows that evil exists and yet we bring into existence man. We procreate.

However, I can see going back further and further to previous procreative acts, all the way to Adam (let's assume Brother Adam did exist, shall we?). Does the procreative acts of Adam and Eve give us clemency? Haven't they enabled our every action, actions we're unable to perform without them and their procreation? Is this a mitigation? And you could travel further back and address the creative (no pro prefix) process of God, God as the ultimate enabler.

If we're here by no act of our own, are we then morally unaccountable? If we are accountable, can we be held accountable for our own procreative acts, acts that absolutely positively will result in the death of another human being? But, they're only potential humans, right? Can we be held accountable for actions against potential humans?

Weird stuff, eh?

P.S. I googled this crapola and of course I'm not the first person to ever think about procreation as murder. At, The Hoover Hog it's referred to as, antinatalism. lol. http://hooverhog.typepad.com/hognotes/2007/06/initial_harm_pa_1.html 

P.S.S. I don't blame you if you don't to reply to such babbling, but I thought I'd offer it you and anyone else that might be interested.

Here's an interesting portion of The Hoover Hog's article ( http://hooverhog.typepad.com/hognotes/2007/06/initial_harm_pa_1.html ):

 

Cursorily formalized, the pro-mortalist argument might go a bit like this:

If coming into existence is always a serious harm;

And if the plight of those who do not yet exist constitutes an incalculably vast degree of harm;

And if the prevention of such harm is a rational moral duty;

And if continued procreation is otherwise practicably inevitable;   

Then the intentional destruction of human life may be justified in the interest of preventing the greater magnitude of harm to not-yet-existent people 

Here's the argument with a little more context:

 

Initial Harm Part Two: The Antinatalist Logic of Libertarian Nonaggression

Apocalypse Ethics

In Better Never to Have Been, David Benatar's methodical case against procreation is crafted, for the most part, in the language of ethical utility. This may be the best way to do it. I don't know. There is the advantage of potential objectivity, which can be helpful. But there is a point, I think, at which Benatar seems cornered by the stronger claims that his own reasoning would seem to permit, if not sanction.  A point at which the ultimate logic of hedonic asymmetry is better left diluted.  .

"Pro-mortalism" is a fascinating term, isn't it?  In Benatar's usage, it denotes the broadest and most morally problematic application of the negative utilitarian logic buttressing anti-natalist ethics.  In a peculiar phrase, it describes a moral philosophy of genocide. 

Cursorily formalized, the pro-mortalist argument might go a bit like this:

• If coming into existence is always a serious harm;
• And if the plight of those who do not yet exist constitutes an incalculably vast degree of harm;
• And if the prevention of such harm is a rational moral duty;
• And if continued procreation is otherwise practicably inevitable;   
• Then the intentional destruction of human life may be justified in the interest of preventing the greater magnitude of harm to not-yet-existent people    

Now I know of no serious thinker -- living or dead -- who openly embraces a pro-mortalist stance thus or otherwise articulated, even rhetorically.  And it should be emphasized that Benatar's dalliance with the idea is staged in the manner of a preemptive rejoinder; he raises the specter only to explode it, ostensibly as a matter of philosophical housecleaning.  Yet it is only at this awkward juncture that I catch even a whiff of disingenuousness. In stating his case against breeding, Benatar always takes care to ask  the right questions and consider possible responses, but his perspective becomes suspiciously myopic, er, sub specie humanitas, when he considers the prospect of mass killing for the greater good.

pairunoyd:

I've mentioned before about contracts. Couldn't communities have contracts that lists basic expectations of neighbors, e.g., Thou shalt not drop your children off an 80 ft bridge? If an individual w/i that community refused to agree to community contracts they would experience varying levels of discrimination, depending upon the contract(s) not agreed to. If a person refuses to sign the most basic contract, one that binds them not to commit 'murder', 99.9% of the community would refuse to trade with them. You gotta trade to live. Plus, landowners w/i a community would feel pressured to make sure anyone they trade land with and 'bring into' the community signs said contract(s) before trading w/ them or risk the same level of ostracization. In fact, part of the community contract might involve only selling to those that agree to at least the most basic contracts. If the child killer was a party to the 'anti-murder' contract he would be investigated by the justice company and be subject to the terms he agreed to if found guilty.

 I think you're on the right track here with the peer pressure and ostracism, but I don't think you need explicit contractual arrangements for such basic things as murder.  I think such things would be reasonable expectations of the community, and thus naturally enforced through defensive measures and criminal cases. 

macsnafu:

I think such things would be reasonable expectations of the community, and thus naturally enforced through defensive measures and criminal cases. 

But wouldn't explicitness via contracts be a proactive way of stating that man has the power to agree or disagree to terms and not be 'naturally subject to' any other man? If we get to the philosophically problematic areas concerning a parent's role, a lot of the problems can be resolved by clarifying these issues via explicit contracts. Also, there would be assumed an implicit understanding of the nature of your neighbor if he eschews such basic contracts as 'non-murder agreements'. If a person doesn't agree to this, they're most likely highly suspect. Of course, they could simply be a radical anti-contractual anarchist. lol "My only contract is the anti-contract. I shall not be bound by pen and paper to the machinations of your ideologically utopian aspirations." 

pairunoyd:

But wouldn't explicitness via contracts be a proactive way of stating that man has the power to agree or disagree to terms and not be 'naturally subject to' any other man? If we get to the philosophically problematic areas concerning a parent's role, a lot of the problems can be resolved by clarifying these issues via explicit contracts. Also, there would be assumed an implicit understanding of the nature of your neighbor if he eschews such basic contracts as 'non-murder agreements'. If a person doesn't agree to this, they're most likely highly suspect.

 If the remedy for breaching a contract is no different than committing the crime without any such contract, then the contract is pointless, or at best, simply an explicit statement of what is desired.  If somebody signs a "non-murder agreement", and then commits a murder, why would the retaliation be any different than if they hadn't signed such an agreement?  Someone who refused to sign such an agreement might be suspect, or they might just be contrary.  Either way, it's still not a valid contract, and we still don't want someone to murder someone else. 

Other areas that don't involve crime might well be contractual, though, so a parent's role might be subject to a contractual agreement, under certain circumstances.

 

macsnafu:

If the remedy for breaching a contract is no different than committing the crime without any such contract, then the contract is pointless, or at best, simply an explicit statement of what is desired. 

So since man will naturally avenge murder, we don't need to explicate this natural response of man? But at the least, can't remedies for murder vary, ie varying 'sentences' imposed? Would these remedies be a 'natural level of response' or would they need to be agreed to? If remedies can vary, can they vary to the point of 'no remedy' or what we might consider a 'nominal remedy', e.g. you are hereby sentenced to 1 second in jail.?

macsnafu:

If somebody signs a "non-murder agreement", and then commits a murder, why would the retaliation be any different than if they hadn't signed such an agreement?

The utility of contracts? Is the utility determined by how pratical is it for man to forever seek agreement on every matter they engage in? I mean, I can imagine everyone walking around with briefcases and pulling out contracts over every trivial encounter. "I wish to greet my fellow-man. Let's see, where that greeting contract?   

Thank you for your patience.

pairunoyd:

So since man will naturally avenge murder, we don't need to explicate this natural response of man?

 It doesn't need to be part of a contract, since it involves crime and criminal law.

 

pairunoyd:

The utility of contracts? Is the utility determined by how pratical is it for man to forever seek agreement on every matter they engage in?

The utility of contracts are largely determined by their usefulness and enforceability.  Contracts for trivial encounters are silly not just because they're impractical, but unenforceable.  What would be an appropriate punishment for a rude greeting or lack of greeting?  What would be the point of going to court over it?

 

Life is precious. Please remember Rick Burgess of Rick and Bubba radio show today at 2 P.M. CST. His son, Bronner, drown in their pool Saturday evening. They now have 4 children. The mother locked all the doors, put the kids a movie on and went to take a shower. When she got out she couldn't find their 2 yr old son, little 'cornbread'. They later found him in their pool. 911 was called but he couldn't be saved.

Rick, Bronner's dad, will speak at the funeral today in Birmingham, AL. He's CRAZY about his kids. It's really, really tough. My sister was raped and murdered 30 yrs ago this year. My dad is a preacher and he too officiated her funeral. She was 18. It's probably the worst thing a person can go thru, burying their own child.

Thanks guys.