Imagine that you live in a non-descript house in a non-descript town in a non-descript state. You're sitting in your chair, drinking a beer, when there's a knock on the door. You open it up to find a man pointing a gun at your head. He says " I'm collecting money for the new opera house, and I strongly suggest you contribute to the fund." You pay the requested amount and he departs. The next year the same thing happens, and so on for about five years or so. At last you get up the courage to ask him, "Are you always going to come by my house every year and take money from me at gunpoint for the opera fund, or the cute kitten day fund?" He smiles and responds, "Yes, I promise that I will always come by your house on the same day every year to make sure you donate your fair share."
Now my question, actually questions are,
Assuming you know where his base of operations are and assuming that you are more than certain that he will keep taking money from you through the use and/or threat of violence is it acceptable under libertarian theory to attack him at his place of business? In order for it to be a defensive action does there need to be a certain time requirement?
Or are you required to wait until he's at your door before you do anything? Is violence against the state poo pooed among libertarians for philosophical reasons or practical reasons? Could blowing up your local IRS building be justified under libertarian theory or not? If so why? if not, why not?
NB: I'm not advocating such actions as I'm aware of the legal consequences, but curious to see if libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism have definite answers with regards to what constitutes self-defense and what does not.
No, A preventive attack is not justified as self defense. Past aggressions do not imply future aggressions. The person is justified using violence as self defense only if the attack is emminent. And the defense must be in proportion to the aggression. If a little girl picks your prized petunia, you have no right to blow her head off with a shotgun. The defender of their property can open the door with a machine gun and that may scare off the would be aggressor.
No, violence against any aggressor is justified for a person to defend person or property. This includes the state. The problem with state is three fold: 1. The state specializes in violence so using violence to defend against it is normally pointless as the state has goons willing to literally die for it. 2. Most of the world recognizes the state as having legitimate power to use violence, so the rest of the world outside of a few liberty minded folks does not recognize your right to self defense. And 3. The only agencies for redress of this kind are courts that are parts of the state apparatus. So it is very difficult, not impossible, to have one of these agencies rule in your favor.
I can not say absolutely no to blowing up the IRS building in defense as I can concoct a scenario where someone in the IRS building is shooting at you. But in the case of getting back stolen property, an individual is has a right to use violence to get stolen property back but does not have a right to injure others who have nothing to do with the theft, this distinction is difficult to make when in a government building. If the individual pays say 200 million in taxes and the building costs say 100 million then the individual would be justified to take the building assuming there is an arbitrator recognized by both parties who awards the individual the building. That individual could then blow it up if that individual desires. But any injuries and damage to other peoples property would be the responsibility of the individual.
"No, A preventive attack is not justified as self defense. Past aggressions do not imply future aggressions"
Normally I'd agree, but what about the case of taxation? I mean does the minute possibility that the government might decide to abolish the IRS one day and do away with the income tax some way along the line satisfy the 'do not imply ...' aspect of your argument?
And what is the difference between the man who directly takes the money from you and the people who work for the same organization?
And what is the proportional response to someone attempting to take your property by force?
Read Kinsella on threats. link
It sounds like a threat to me, but he has already robbed you so it is right to take action anyhow. I wouldn't say "attack" him. Since he has already initiated aggression, you may use aggression as well. You put yourself in further danger by carrying out vigilante justice on your own, so it would be best to capture him (probably via a PDA) and use arbitration to determine proportional punishment.
In order for it to be a defensive action does there need to be a certain time requirement? Or are you required to wait until he's at your door before you do anything?
Or are you required to wait until he's at your door before you do anything?
You don't need to wait and there is no statute of limitations or restriction on justice ex post facto.
Is violence against the state poo pooed among libertarians for philosophical reasons or practical reasons?
Libertarians or libertarians? States acquire or accomplish nothing without initiating aggression. I view initiating aggression as criminal/punishable. You do the math.
Could blowing up your local IRS building be justified under libertarian theory or not?
Maybe, but there could be innocent people in it, so I would think twice.
I would be curious if other people had links about this, but I know of two papers by Block and Kinsella that try to explain. I have some issues with both papers but both authors are supposed to have bigger works on justice coming out, so I will wait and see.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
I mean lower case libs, not members of the joke that is the LP.
Good read by Kinsella; it seems as if threats are actionable under his way of thinking. And the threat of the government taking ones money every year is a pretty certain one.
My question about the relationship between libertarianism and the use of violence against the state also includes the question of why libertarianism seems to have evolved a preference to the use of non-violent methods, unlike some other forms of anarchism; such as perhaps the ideas advocated by Bakunin. If response to credible threats is appropriate, and if, as Kinsella seems to point out, responding to theft with death has been deemed an appropriate response among different communities in the past why didn't libertarianism/anarcho-capitalism evolve with a violent side as well? Not saying it would be a good thing if Lew and Hoppe went on Beltway drive-bys, but I'm trying to find out what the libertarian arguments are against targeted violence of people you are more than certain are going to take money from you other than the obvious fact that it's not practical.
What about the issue of the American Revolution? It seems as though it's viewed as a 'good war' by folks like Rothbard? Is he wrong?
CrazyCoot:My question about the relationship between libertarianism and the use of violence against the state also includes the question of why libertarianism seems to have evolved a preference to the use of non-violent methods, unlike some other forms of anarchism . . .
My question about the relationship between libertarianism and the use of violence against the state also includes the question of why libertarianism seems to have evolved a preference to the use of non-violent methods, unlike some other forms of anarchism . . .
Primarily, because it's not as effective to be violent. You don't earn any points in the eyes of the public and the state, which specializes in repression, will easily put down any resistance short of an actual army.
Life and reality are neither logical nor illogical; they are simply given. But logic is the only tool available to man for the comprehension of both.—Ludwig von Mises
Life and reality are neither logical nor illogical; they are simply given. But logic is the only tool available to man for the comprehension of both.
Bogart:No, A preventive attack is not justified as self defense.
I don't think the OP is advocating a preventive attack. Following a strict libertarian-propertarian theory of ethics, it is moral to attack the extortionist in order to collect compensation. It could possibly also be moral to attack the extortionist as a form of retribution.
Political Atheists Blog
CrazyCoot:I mean lower case libs, not members of the joke that is the LP. Good read by Kinsella; it seems as if threats are actionable under his way of thinking. And the threat of the government taking ones money every year is a pretty certain one. My question about the relationship between libertarianism and the use of violence against the state also includes the question of why libertarianism seems to have evolved a preference to the use of non-violent methods, unlike some other forms of anarchism; such as perhaps the ideas advocated by Bakunin. If response to credible threats is appropriate, and if, as Kinsella seems to point out, responding to theft with death has been deemed an appropriate response among different communities in the past why didn't libertarianism/anarcho-capitalism evolve with a violent side as well? Not saying it would be a good thing if Lew and Hoppe went on Beltway drive-bys, but I'm trying to find out what the libertarian arguments are against targeted violence of people you are more than certain are going to take money from you other than the obvious fact that it's not practical.
I would say that there is more to being a big L than being in the LP, but don't feel like clarifying now and don't have much to say about Bakunin =)
I tend to agree more with Block on proportionality but I think he has to clarify/define some things better. For instance, there is more to "costs of capture" than just the price for a police officer to track down the bad guys. Kinsella uses the word for another important element, 'recapture'. That could be interest, prison rent vs. prisoner income, etc. Kinsella seems to ignore the X bullets in Y chambers heuristic device of Block's, which is the only way death would result for non-murder crimes. For some crimes, like murder or burning the Mona Lisa, whatever correct maximum punishment just isn't possible.
Instead there will be monetary restitution. I think that 3rd-party institutions like insurance firms and non-profit rehabilitation centers would develop ways to handle Block's "premium for scaring" factor. Kinsella totally ignores it but I don't see how he can. Imagine a drunk driver veers toward you but ultimately no damage is done. The drunk driver probably doesn't want a 6/27 chance of dying or to negotiate for an even higher payment to the victim. He might be willing to accept higher insurance payments and some sort of points system, while the third party accepts the immediate costs.
I would be happy to forgive the Beltway if they just resign.
The issue of libertarian prisons and punishment in general seems to have more to do with responding after the fact as opposed to the use of violence in self-defense. But monetary restitution seems to be an idea that already has historical precedence; the Anglo-Saxons had the weregeld and I believe that the concept of a blood price still exists among some segments of the Arab world.
Fair play on the big L issue, it's just that big L is normally used to refer to members of the LP.
And the image of Tucker driving around with a bowtie on listening to classical music and dropping bureaucrat bodies is chuckleworthy.
The way you (well, others can get hysterical) talk about "after the fact" sort of makes it seem like we're saying, "People might murder you but we will just deal with it later, no biggie."
Google "Kinsella compensation ratio" and consider the proposition's reductio. I think it was the Anglo-Saxons who used the term "thief-taker" for what we might call PDA employee. People who put for the overwhelmingly common objection to private defense with the "Bill Gates" who murders for fun, forget that defense is pretty much like any other for-profit enterprise. The "premium for scaring" or a contractual system where one might steal enough cattle to be obligated to give up one's life throws a wrench in the whole thing. What isn't clear to me is what sort of profits one can take or how preventative measures could be compensated for by the criminal.
If a thief can "rob an apple tree 9 times out of 10 without getting caught", do you think that whatever measures necessary to "even the score" can be accounted for? I think maybe it can, but within another aspect of proportionality than the "two teeth for a tooth".
"The way you (well, others can get hysterical) talk about "after the fact" sort of makes it seem like we're saying, "People might murder you but we will just deal with it later, no biggie."
I used 'after the fact' to differentiate between issue of libertarian views on punishment vs. the subject of the original question; which was about self-defense and not punishing a criminal after the fact.
And Kinsella's arguments about compensation exceeding the detection rate seem pretty sound. Would imprisonment or exile be preferrable to you? why?
"I used 'after the fact' to differentiate between issue of libertarian views on punishment vs. the subject of the original question; which was about self-defense and not punishing a criminal after the fact."
I understand what you mean, but was just taking issue slightly with the semantics. If I proclaim that I will come for your second born next tuesday, or do whatever may be necessary to be considered a genuine threat, the threat is viewed in terms of how one may respond defensively as if the crime had been committed; however, the punishment considers nothing for the crime (since it was not committed), and the threat goes under the "premium for scaring" aspect. I don't have much more time now, but I hope you get what I mean.
"And Kinsella's arguments about compensation exceeding the detection rate seem pretty sound. Would imprisonment or exile be preferrable to you? why?"
As I said, consider the reductio ad absurdum. If I try to steal the Mona Lisa and have a 2% chance, should I be punished less? Imprisonment or exile is another matter entirely.
I know it's a bit of a digression, but wouldn't the fact that the Mona Lisa is a well known piece make it an economic burden for a thief? I mean it would be easier to fence a valuable piece of art or other property that is not well known rather than trying to steal and sell the Mona Lisa on the black market. The thief would have a pretty limited market of potential buyers for the Mona Lisa. Should the auction house appraisal value of the Mona Lisa be used or the the value that the thief could get on the black market?
CrazyCoot: I know it's a bit of a digression, but wouldn't the fact that the Mona Lisa is a well known piece make it an economic burden for a thief? I mean it would be easier to fence a valuable piece of art or other property that is not well known rather than trying to steal and sell the Mona Lisa on the black market. The thief would have a pretty limited market of potential buyers for the Mona Lisa. Should the auction house appraisal value of the Mona Lisa be used or the the value that the thief could get on the black market?
I can't really answer those questions, but they are something to consider. For the most part, don't "Mona Lisas" gain their value from being "well known"? I would personally rather have a semi-luxury car than the Mona Lisa, except that I know the Mona Lisa holds much more value on the market. If a thief of the Mona Lisa has been caught, either the painting has been recovered and returned or it is lost. We can say either one or two "teeth" are owed.
I think that the "teeth" aspect is "backward-looking". We can say that a thing was stolen from the victim and that this involuntary transaction can't be coherently argued against by the thief if it is returned. This introduces the problem of homogeneous vs. non-homogeneous goods. It is easier to solve problems with homogeneous goods. I stole a Snickers bar and must return it as well as give up my own Snickers bar. In the case of non-homogeneous goods, I think we must divide justice's stare into looking at the victim and the aggressor. Make of that what you will.
Our best legal model available will be the most elegant. The "teeth" aspect is backward-looking in that we can decide what has been done and what is owed. The "premium for scaring" aspect is forward-looking. What might have come if the crackhead really shot my wife in the head like he said he would?
The problem with "compensation ratio" as part of the "teeth" aspect is introducing subjectivity where it is not needed. Notice from the article the repeated assumption that CoC and PfS are neglible. Anyhow, by "Mona Lisa" I really just meant a thing that is well guarded. There are armed security officers, sophisticated anti-theft alarms, and your supposed chance of getting away with the crime is small. It could be an old dirty sock, but you have about a 2% chance to get away with the heist, or 34% whatever. The real contention of "compensation ratio is that since a criminal can rob people who have apple trees along the road 95% of the time, he owes the apples that the last 19 thieves stole because of the nature of the crime. Then this must say that the diamond thief who defied all odds must owe less.