Autolykos: Brutus:In a society without government, what would you do if you walked by and saw a man beating his 5 year old child into a bloody pulp? I would tackle him to the ground or otherwise try to stop him from continuing the beating. If a court later found against me, I would pay restitution. Yes, I consider the 5-year-old to be a self-owner.
Brutus:In a society without government, what would you do if you walked by and saw a man beating his 5 year old child into a bloody pulp?
I would tackle him to the ground or otherwise try to stop him from continuing the beating. If a court later found against me, I would pay restitution. Yes, I consider the 5-year-old to be a self-owner.
I like the clear answer! Very straight forward. Thanks Autolykos.
"Is life so dear or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" -Patrick Henry
Brutus:Private courts and private police agencies would need to deal with the blatant child abuse? So you're effectively allowing a group to think and respond for you, similar to relying on the police or government today, yet because in your scenario there would be no monopolized authority it's justifiable to allow a separate body to determine what is right or wrong?
I think Rcder misunderstood your question. He seems to have taken it as one of the format "In a society without government, how will X be handled/dealt with?" That's not what you meant, as far as I can tell. You actually meant to ask what each of us would do, i.e. on an individual basis.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
liberty student: Michael J Green:(I suspect LS assumed I was such a person, making it inconsistent of me to damn property rights; from what he's been saying recently, I imagine LS agrees with AJ, as I do too). We're in agreement. I was using your post to stir up the hornets nest.
Michael J Green:(I suspect LS assumed I was such a person, making it inconsistent of me to damn property rights; from what he's been saying recently, I imagine LS agrees with AJ, as I do too).
We're in agreement. I was using your post to stir up the hornets nest.
liberty student trolling? No!
Brutus:liberty student, I don't see an answer to the original question. What would you do?
That's really none of your business.
Brutus:liberty student trolling? No!
It's not trolling, it's that some of you believe stuff that is pure fantasy, and those people are so invested in that fantasy, it takes a different approach to get a point across.
Autolykos: Brutus:Private courts and private police agencies would need to deal with the blatant child abuse? So you're effectively allowing a group to think and respond for you, similar to relying on the police or government today, yet because in your scenario there would be no monopolized authority it's justifiable to allow a separate body to determine what is right or wrong? I think Rcder misunderstood your question. He seems to have taken it as one of the format "In a society without government, how will X be handled/dealt with?" That's not what you meant, as far as I can tell. You actually meant to ask what each of us would do, i.e. on an individual basis.
Yes and no. One begs the other. Really I only start discussions on here, don't look to find the exact answer, really, though one usually forms after some time.
Yes, I want to know what each individual person would do, but similar to a method liberty student might profess, I want to find out why they would do it. I think everyone on here is good in trusting their intuition. One naturally knows the scenario is wrong, but anarcho-capitalism can lead to a sticky web. Where is the line drawn between tolerance and compassion? It's gray for sure.
For example, say the situation was different, that a mute 30 year old man was bludgeoning another 30 year old man that was bound in a wheel chair, obviously not putting up a fight. Would you stop that?
If you did choose to stop it, what if the wheel chair bound man had kidnapped the mute man's son and will not tell him where his son is other than by force? Then I say by all means allow the bludgeoning to continue until he gets the information, yet many people would stop it and the mute would not be able to elaborate on the dire circumstance. The mute man might be stopped, yet an injustice is being done by society interfering in actual justice: a man protecting his son.
Although I know this and other scenarios like this would likely never happen, it's an exercise to see how strong the proposed system of anarchy is in a quick, emotional and dangerous scenario. Seems like the ethics are questionable, though the solution is simple and clear. Again, I only intended it as a thought exercise.
Brutus:You're accurate in pointing out the difficulty in the situation. I believe the issue comes down to how law is defined and enforced while at the same time concerning the definition of private property. If the child is his own being, then it is simply a fight between two people, one obviously winning. Ought someone team up with him?
As Bojan B. pointed out, it's not necessarily just a fight between two people. I would consider the father/adult to be clearly aggressing against the child by beating him/her to a bloody pulp.
Brutus:If the child is private property, anarcho-capitalists would be nothing but stoics, ignoring the very element of compassion and emotion that makes them human. I suppose it would be impossible (other than for a killer with no mirror neurons) to walk by such a scene and not want have a desire to have the action changed.
In logical terms, this seems like both an appeal to ridicule and an appeal to the majority.
Brutus: In a society without government, what would you do if you walked by and saw a man beating his 5 year old child into a bloody pulp?
In a society without government, what would you do if you walked by and saw a man beating his 5 year old child into a bloody pulp?
I would join that man and beat the shit out of that little bastard
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
Brutus:Yes and no. One begs the other. Really I only start discussions on here, don't look to find the exact answer, really, though one usually forms after some time.
How does one beg the other? Strictly speaking, there can never be a clear answer to the question "How would X be dealt with?" Each situation is unique, and there are never any guarantees in this world.
Brutus:Yes, I want to know what each individual person would do, but similar to a method liberty student might profess, I want to find out why they would do it. I think everyone on here is good in trusting their intuition. One naturally knows the scenario is wrong, but anarcho-capitalism can lead to a sticky web. Where is the line drawn between tolerance and compassion? It's gray for sure.
This sounds to me like you're appealing to the nirvana fallacy.
Brutus:For example, say the situation was different, that a mute 30 year old man was bludgeoning another 30 year old man that was bound in a wheel chair, obviously not putting up a fight. Would you stop that?
Yes.
Brutus:If you did choose to stop it, what if the wheel chair bound man had kidnapped the mute man's son and will not tell him where his son is other than by force? Then I say by all means allow the bludgeoning to continue until he gets the information, yet many people would stop it and the mute would not be able to elaborate on the dire circumstance. The mute man might be stopped, yet an injustice is being done by society interfering in actual justice: a man protecting his son.
Are you implying (i.e. sneaking in an additional premise) that the mute man is also illiterate? Otherwise, I don't see why the mute man couldn't elaborate on the dire circumstance.
For the wheelchair-bound man to tell the mute man where the latter's son is only if the former is "sufficiently forced" would imply to me that the wheelchair-bound man is some sort of masochist. I don't see any other reason why he would put down such a condition. In that case, the mute man isn't aggressing against the wheelchair-bound man and I'd let him continue with the bludgeoning.
Brutus:Although I know this and other scenarios like this would likely never happen, it's an exercise to see how strong the proposed system of anarchy is in a quick, emotional and dangerous scenario. Seems like the ethics are questionable, though the solution is simple and clear. Again, I only intended it as a thought exercise.
What do you mean by "strong" and "the ethics are questionable"? I don't see how there's necessarily any solution, let alone a simple and clear one.
A very generalized question, isn't it?
A society without government does not necessarily imply a society without law. In beating his son, the man in question must face consequences in dealing with the rest of society even if his son is considered to be his property. In a society where people purchase the services of protection there would probably be stipulations on what would be considered acceptable behavior. This situation may or may not fall into some exceptions to the general rule. Defending the brutal beating of the child may not necessarily violate the father's property rights, that would be a matter for the court to decide.
Since the question is over-generalized, as I expect was the intention in order to generate discussion (possibly to conclude "therefore, government"), the over-generalized response would be to intervene and accept the resulting punishment for violating the father's property rights. I would not criticize others who choose not to intervene. The question goes beyond the application of rights, and focuses more on subjective value. It's the subjective value of the boy's life (at least for the moment) versus whatever penalty is required for violating the father's property rights.
Brutus: So you maintain that the child is not the father's private property, correct?
Yes, and I know that raises implications for the parent's authority over the child and the legal custody of the kid. I think you can work it out though.
liberty student: Brutus:liberty student, I don't see an answer to the original question. What would you do? That's really none of your business.
I thought you were a nihilist.
Autolykos: Brutus:Yes and no. One begs the other. Really I only start discussions on here, don't look to find the exact answer, really, though one usually forms after some time. How does one beg the other? Strictly speaking, there can never be a clear answer to the question "How would X be dealt with?" Each situation is unique, and there are never any guarantees in this world. Brutus:Yes, I want to know what each individual person would do, but similar to a method liberty student might profess, I want to find out why they would do it. I think everyone on here is good in trusting their intuition. One naturally knows the scenario is wrong, but anarcho-capitalism can lead to a sticky web. Where is the line drawn between tolerance and compassion? It's gray for sure. This sounds to me like you're appealing to the nirvana fallacy. Brutus:For example, say the situation was different, that a mute 30 year old man was bludgeoning another 30 year old man that was bound in a wheel chair, obviously not putting up a fight. Would you stop that? Yes. Brutus:If you did choose to stop it, what if the wheel chair bound man had kidnapped the mute man's son and will not tell him where his son is other than by force? Then I say by all means allow the bludgeoning to continue until he gets the information, yet many people would stop it and the mute would not be able to elaborate on the dire circumstance. The mute man might be stopped, yet an injustice is being done by society interfering in actual justice: a man protecting his son. Are you implying (i.e. sneaking in an additional premise) that the mute man is also illiterate? Otherwise, I don't see why the mute man couldn't elaborate on the dire circumstance. For the wheelchair-bound man to tell the mute man where the latter's son is only if the former is "sufficiently forced" would imply to me that the wheelchair-bound man is some sort of masochist. I don't see any other reason why he would put down such a condition. In that case, the mute man isn't aggressing against the wheelchair-bound man and I'd let him continue with the bludgeoning. Brutus:Although I know this and other scenarios like this would likely never happen, it's an exercise to see how strong the proposed system of anarchy is in a quick, emotional and dangerous scenario. Seems like the ethics are questionable, though the solution is simple and clear. Again, I only intended it as a thought exercise. What do you mean by "strong" and "the ethics are questionable"? I don't see how there's necessarily any solution, let alone a simple and clear one.
I'd say the clear and simple answer is to stop the man from beating the kid, that's my solution. However, for anarchists, getting involved in other people's affairs due to an injustice seems to be quite a bold action given that it really is the man's business. It's the fact that you and others advocate a third party's interference in itself that is surprising. Of course I agree with the conclusion, but principally, I don't see how anarchists are breaking their own liberty. I understand that by preserving the boy's liberty, they really are...but that begs the reality that sometimes third party interference in other people's affairs leads to the greatest liberty. Anarchists in that case can become utilitarians.
And this law enforcement concept some people suggested is really vague. What if John's Law Enforcement and Bill's Law Enforcement are both called to the scene of the mute and the wheel chair bound man fighting, and the two come to different conclusions about who started the fight, who is right, et cetera. What then?!
It seems you guys are still assuming the kid is the defender, and the guy the attacker, merely because the kid is getting beat. We all know the attacker doesn't always win. Let us suppose the kid is a theif who was trying to steal from the man.
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin
K.C. Farmer: In a society without government, what would you do if you walked by and saw a man beating his 5 year old child into a bloody pulp? A very generalized question, isn't it?
Need it be a complex question? Many situations we come across on a daily basis are this "generalized," yet some response is begged.
K.C. Farmer: A society without government does not necessarily imply a society without law. In beating his son, the man in question must face consequences in dealing with the rest of society even if his son is considered to be his property. In a society where people purchase the services of protection there would probably be stipulations on what would be considered acceptable behavior. This situation may or may not fall into some exceptions to the general rule. Defending the brutal beating of the child may not necessarily violate the father's property rights, that would be a matter for the court to decide.
So the law is universal, yet law enforcement itself is non-monopolistic, right? I'm genuinely trying to understand the anarchist conception of law enforcement. If law is universal, then what is its jurisdiction? Who creates and authorizes this law? A committee? Is this a representative committee? Is the law determined by democratic vote? What then of potential mob rule, whereby the mob agrees to things that are against liberty? Would it not still be law? Who is the judge in this court you speak of? How is he selected? Can the judge be paid off? Can the judge even be paid in emoluments or salary? What if he is corrupt? Is this judge also part of an anarcho-capitalist model whereby I could set up John's Judging next door to Bill's Judging and the people that apprehend the law breaker can choose where to bring him? These are just a few things that immediately come to mind in the scenario you suggest.
K.C. Farmer: Since the question is over-generalized, as I expect was the intention in order to generate discussion (possibly to conclude "therefore, government"), the over-generalized response would be to intervene and accept the resulting punishment for violating the father's property rights. I would not criticize others who choose not to intervene. The question goes beyond the application of rights, and focuses more on subjective value. It's the subjective value of the boy's life (at least for the moment) versus whatever penalty is required for violating the father's property rights.
You're implying that I'm making a judgment call on needing government when, in fact, I have made none and don't intend to. This isn't to teach anyone any particular lesson or anything. I made the situation as general as it would be in a real situation as if you were walking to the mall and saw it happening on a street corner.
I'm eager to see the responses to the above questions I had because I'm really curious how this works out in the anarchist model.
Laotzu del Zinn: It seems you guys are still assuming the kid is the defender, and the guy the attacker, merely because the kid is getting beat. We all know the attacker doesn't always win. Let us suppose the kid is a theif who was trying to steal from the man.
What's your answer to the question, then? What would you do?
Autolykos: What do you mean by "strong" and "the ethics are questionable"? I don't see how there's necessarily any solution, let alone a simple and clear one.
I thought I should pose this for you as well as the other person answering it. It's concerning non-monopolistic law enforcement. Just curious to see your response.
So the law is universal, yet law enforcement itself is non-monopolistic, right? I'm genuinely trying to understand the anarchist conception of law enforcement. If law is universal, then what is its jurisdiction? Who creates and authorizes this law? A committee? Is this a representative committee? Is the law determined by democratic vote? What then of potential mob rule, whereby the mob agrees to things that are against liberty? Would it not still be law? Who is the judge in this court you speak of? How is he selected? Can the judge be paid off? Can the judge even be paid in emoluments or salary? What if he is corrupt? Is this judge also part of an anarcho-capitalist model whereby I could set up John's Judging next door to Bill's Judging and the people that apprehend the law breaker can choose where to bring him? These are just a few things that immediately come to mind.....
I would do what cops are supposed to do (although I'm not one) and call backup from private protection agency (my safety first ;)) and them point my gun at him and tell him to stop. What comes next depends on situation but I bet unless he is some kind of psycho this would suffice.
Brutus: How To Rescue A Child (Without The State).
Government Explained 2: The Special Piece of Paper
Law without Government
Michael J Green:Do what I can to stop it, property rights be damned.
You would not necessarily be violating a property right by rescuing the child. If the abusive actions of the parent constitute abandonment of the parental right (and this will be determined by customs), then the action of rescuing the child is an act of homesteading of the parental right. It would be the abusive parent who would be violating property rights if he resisted your attempts to rescue the child: namely, he would be committing the crime of forestalling (preventing the homesteading of an unowned object).
I don't know why more libertarians are not familiar with Walter Block's solution to the problems that Rothbard was unable to solve on this topic.
Brutus:I'd say the clear and simple answer is to stop the man from beating the kid, that's my solution.
Which is it? Is it your solution, or the solution?
Brutus:However, for anarchists, getting involved in other people's affairs due to an injustice seems to be quite a bold action given that it really is the man's business. It's the fact that you and others advocate a third party's interference in itself that is surprising. Of course I agree with the conclusion, but principally, I don't see how anarchists are breaking their own liberty. I understand that by preserving the boy's liberty, they really are...but that begs the reality that sometimes third party interference in other people's affairs leads to the greatest liberty. Anarchists in that case can become utilitarians.
I don't see why you're so surprised by me and others saying that we would interfere if faced with the situation you presented. On the other hand, I don't see how saying that necessarily makes me a utilitarian. Can you please explain?
Brutus:And this law enforcement concept some people suggested is really vague. What if John's Law Enforcement and Bill's Law Enforcement are both called to the scene of the mute and the wheel chair bound man fighting, and the two come to different conclusions about who started the fight, who is right, et cetera. What then?!
No one knows what necessarily would happen in such a situation - if anything. All any of us can do is bring up possibilities and assign likelihoods (hopefully backed up by reasoning) to them.
Brutus:I thought I should pose this for you as well as the other person answering it. It's concerning non-monopolistic law enforcement. Just curious to see your response. So the law is universal, yet law enforcement itself is non-monopolistic, right? I'm genuinely trying to understand the anarchist conception of law enforcement. If law is universal, then what is its jurisdiction? Who creates and authorizes this law? A committee? Is this a representative committee? Is the law determined by democratic vote? What then of potential mob rule, whereby the mob agrees to things that are against liberty? Would it not still be law? Who is the judge in this court you speak of? How is he selected? Can the judge be paid off? Can the judge even be paid in emoluments or salary? What if he is corrupt? Is this judge also part of an anarcho-capitalist model whereby I could set up John's Judging next door to Bill's Judging and the people that apprehend the law breaker can choose where to bring him? These are just a few things that immediately come to mind.....
I don't appreciate you asking questions and then pre-empting answers to them. It suggests that you're not actually interested in others' answers.
That aside, I'm not sure what you even mean by "law", so let's start there. What do you mean by "law"?
I'm genuinely trying to understand the anarchist conception of law enforcement.
Try the forum's search function. We've had several such discussions over the past few months and there are probably even more the further back you go.
Not sure how you got from the statement "a society without government does not necessarily imply a society without law" to "So the law is universal".
Why not start there after you've had time to digest the previous conversations on the topic, which includes some pretty good reading material and even a video.
As for the OP, I stand by my answer for the reasons I provided.
Brutus: Natural authority? I don't believe there is any such thing. All authority is artificial due to its reciprocal nature. In many ways, I've never seen how authority exists; it's mainly a reciprocal view of submission. How is any committee naturally authoritative? Please explain.
Natural authority? I don't believe there is any such thing. All authority is artificial due to its reciprocal nature. In many ways, I've never seen how authority exists; it's mainly a reciprocal view of submission. How is any committee naturally authoritative? Please explain.
I mean ‘natural’ as in spontaneous: something that happens even if no one planned for it to happen. Another way to look at it would be to see it unavoidable, an ‘iron law’ if you will. Finally you can say that authority is natural as in it is created without anyone pointing guns at anyone. In these senses I say that authority, not power or submission as you say, is natural.
On another note nobody has any duty to help this person wheter it's under statism or ancap system and it is in his best interest to protect himself. Ancapistan is no utopia and doesnt turn humans into angels and solve all of their problems.
So another interesting and honest reply would be: I wouldn't do anything, because I don't care - it is not my problem.
In the essence it really doesn't matter. Even if the kid is thief who stole something from the man, the man can agress against the kid only in reasonable proportion enough to get his property stolen. And this is very normal concept that more or less exist in criminal law in 90% of the States in the world.
This is the problem with objective property theories versus property as defined under customary law. The rigidity of even the strictest system of property rights is an illusion, as probably best illustrated in The Myth of the Rule of Law. While it is certainly true that systems of social order characterized by strong respect for property rights have been the most peaceful and prosperous, "absolute property rights" is a phantom.
Laws regarding conduct between people come from people.
In my situation, if I went outside my house and saw a guy beating a kid, I'd do what I could to stop it.
In a different situation, it depends on the circumstances.
What's your answer to the question, then? What would you do
Look at my avatar, what do you think I would do? I have no qualms about "respecting property rights." Fences/land claims are borders. And as an anarchist, I don't respect borders.
Not enough info. Is this what I imagine a stateless society to look like or what you imagine it to look like?
The point that is not being looked at is there would likely be market mechanisms for punishment that do not involve property right infringements. The observer need not 'do something' physically to intervene. This would likely be the least harmless. The observer could call a 1800 kids help number and give his eye witness or video testamant. The organization may then stage an extremely effective boycott, smear scheme, denial of transportation or transactions, causing embarsement loss of job, etc. The parent may end up with his or her face on a milk carton that says "child beater". Things of this nature would likely be more of a deterant than jumping a fence and beating up a guy who is beating up on his kid
Read until you have something to write...Write until you have nothing to write...when you have nothing to write, read...read until you have something to write...Jeremiah
Thy will be done. Hire a PDA and go for it.
Brutus:I like the clear answer! Very straight forward. Thanks Autolykos.
I'm sorry, was my answer not clear enough for you?
John James: JackCuyler:Defense against aggression is certainly no violation of rights. This. I have no idea why anyone would condemn someone who would take action to stop a man from beating a child "into a bloody pulp".
JackCuyler:Defense against aggression is certainly no violation of rights.
This. I have no idea why anyone would condemn someone who would take action to stop a man from beating a child "into a bloody pulp".
Brutus:It beckons how one defines private property and who defines it.
Correct, one cannot establish whether or not it's aggression without an understanding of whatever property rights are being used.
Lets say you find out later that the kid is an arsonist and he was caught red handed about to burn the old man's house down.
So the question is. Where did the beeting take place? Did the violence occur on someone's property? I would start there. Do either party's have insurance? If not will a donater charitably cover the costs of investigation and arbitration of one of the parties?
There are quite possibly an infinite number of ways this problem could easily be handled. I don't see what the big deal is. What happens now? I know family's whos siblings had been murderd and after decades have yet to recieve restition. So I don't see the point in badgering on about this as if the market didn't already have built in provisions to handle it.
So are we just assuming that there would be a well functioning market in the scenario? Seems like a strange and most likely unrealistic assumption if we are talking about a stateless society in my opinion.
@EricSo are we just assuming that there would be a well functioning market in the scenario? Seems like a strange and most likely unrealistic assumption if we are talking about a stateless society in my opinion.
I would make this assumption. I don't think it would be considered a leap of faith to believe that such mechanisms would be apparent in the stateless market. Rothbard details many of the most effective boycotts in his lectures series "On The American Economy and The End of LF". I would understand how such a market would take some time, but, just look at how many tweets and facebook spread the rumor of Taco Bell mystery meat. Taco Bell was quick bring commercials to the market to spear this rumor.
Thy will be done. Hire a PDA and go for it
Tho I understand the "pick your battles," sometimes calling in someone else is not an option.
Also, me and all my friends are practicing martial artists and gun enthusiasts. We're our own PDA,
Brutus:I thought you were a nihilist.
You think all sorts of things.
Eric:So are we just assuming that there would be a well functioning market in the scenario? Seems like a strange and most likely unrealistic assumption if we are talking about a stateless society in my opinion.
Are you saying that well functioning markets can only happen under aggresive monopolies?
Eric still doesn't understand that law comes from the market.
Laotzu del Zinn:Also, me and all my friends are practicing martial artists and gun enthusiasts. We're our own PDA
The statists would deny you the right to self defense, if you take their argument for the need of a monopoly of such services as a principle.
We need a monopoly state to ajudicate conflicts. We need a monopoly state to provide laws. We need a monopoly state to provide enforcement.
The implicit theme is that you and other private citizens are INCAPABLE of resolving conflicts, making customary rules, or protecting yourself.
No statist will touch this in an argument, because obviously it makes them sound like idiots and sociopaths, but that's the implicit argument they make.
YOU cannot take care of yourself, therefor YOU must be taken care of by force.
But ....
While not capable enough to care for yourself, you are capable enough to vote for who cares for you ....