Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

What is the libertarian viewpoint on Assasins?

This post has 34 Replies | 6 Followers

Not Ranked
Male
Posts 73
Points 1,435
Panarchy Posted: Fri, Mar 20 2009 8:40 AM

Hello

I was just wondering if there are any Libertarian ideals in favour of assassins?

Maybe I've been reading to many Terry Pratchet books... but my thoughts are, that in a Free Market, Assassins would be 'Legal' according to the Natural Law.

It wouldn't be "Survival of the Fittest" but "Survival of the most Powerful", which inherently could mean the same thing.

Please tell me your thoughts on this matter.

Thanks in advance,

Panarchy

  • | Post Points: 95
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 122
Points 2,205
BobT replied on Fri, Mar 20 2009 9:03 AM

I think most people here will agree that assassination = killing = force = wrong.

What justification is there for this?

In fact, what makes this different then just murder, besides the victim?

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 73
Points 1,435
Panarchy replied on Fri, Mar 20 2009 9:10 AM

BobT:
In fact, what makes this different then just murder, besides the victim?

You mean the killer right?

Who is worse, the Assassin or the person/people who hired the Assassin?

Or, if you think that they are both in the wrong, then who do you think is more in the wrong, the Assassin or those that hired?

 Panarchy

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,491
Points 43,390
scineram replied on Fri, Mar 20 2009 9:20 AM

Assassination Politics

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 283
Points 5,355

Sure, murder is okey! In one sentence, libertarianism is that everyone has the right to everything which he/she can get through voluntary agreements, or murder. It's your right to kill me, says the libertarian, but don't ya touch my money!

Actually, I think that this libertarian advocacy of random murders is getting a bit unpopular. Does anyone else think that we should change it? Confused

It's not fascism when the government does it.

“We must spend now as an investment for the future.” - President Obama

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,255
Points 80,815
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

I like assassins. They may provide useful services on a market in dealing with aggressors.

Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 353
Points 5,400
nhaag replied on Fri, Mar 20 2009 2:09 PM

Yup, at least they are "skilled" Stick out tongue

In the begining there was nothing, and it exploded.

Terry Pratchett (on the big bang theory)

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 304
Points 3,965
Solomon replied on Fri, Mar 20 2009 2:21 PM

Very similar to lawyers in some respects.

Diminishing Marginal Utility - IT'S THE LAW!

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 353
Points 5,400
nhaag replied on Fri, Mar 20 2009 2:45 PM

Well, at least I can think about useful facilitations for assassins - See Irenicus Ick!

In the begining there was nothing, and it exploded.

Terry Pratchett (on the big bang theory)

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 73
Points 1,435
Panarchy replied on Fri, Mar 20 2009 8:51 PM
Solomon:

Very similar to lawyers in some respects.

Indeed! And about the same price!
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 170
Points 3,275
Arvin replied on Fri, Mar 20 2009 9:44 PM

Jon Irenicus:

I like assassins. They may provide useful services on a market in dealing with aggressors.

They are also useful in "genetic memory" research... Or was that just a game I played?

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 77
Points 1,345

What on Earth has happened here?

  • | Post Points: 35
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 73
Points 1,435
Panarchy replied on Sat, Mar 21 2009 2:31 AM
Yes
  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 24
Points 910
RayLopez replied on Sat, Mar 21 2009 10:36 AM

You mean the historical group of Islamic fighers in the middle east called the Assassin?  They were wiped out by the Mongols, in a classic free market style (one group of government taking over another group, to extract wealth from the remaining population). 

The Mongols did good work, even taking fortresses from the Assassins, though truth be told the Mongols were in their prime and the Assassins were way past their prime.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 244
Points 4,890

The whole of the problem with a fully decentralized system of law rests within the tyranny of the majority whim. In respect to assassinations, which should really be called murder, everything comes down to popular opinion. In where individual lives are judged entirely by the attitude of those immediately involved. There are no rights, no liberties, and no ownership. There would only be uneasy truces between various persons.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 659
Points 13,990
ama gi replied on Sat, Mar 21 2009 5:25 PM

JackSkylark:
There are no rights, no liberties, and no ownership. There would only be uneasy truces between various persons.

Been reading too much Hobbes, eh?

"As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable."

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 120
Points 2,060
The Rev replied on Sat, Mar 21 2009 5:37 PM

The most fundamental tenet of the libertarian philosophy is that each person owns his/her own life, and is responsible for the various outcomes of how that life is lived.  Assassination involves the taking of someone else's life against their will, making it completely incompatible with libertarianism on the deepest possible level.

I suppose your dream of becoming a ninja while maintaining your devotion to laissez-faire will have to wait until something better than reason comes along.

The Rev

Lifes a piece of shit, when you look at it

Life's a laugh and death's a joke, it's true

Just remember it's all a show, keep em laughing as you go

Just remember that the last laugh is on you

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,985
Points 90,430

JackSkylark:
The whole of the problem with a fully decentralized system of law rests within the tyranny of the majority whim.

What are you talking about?

"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"

Bob Dylan

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 659
Points 13,990
ama gi replied on Sat, Mar 21 2009 5:50 PM

Jon Irenicus:

I like assassins. They may provide useful services on a market in dealing with aggressors.

And there I disagree.  Assassination implies premeditation, secrecy, and murder.  Killing in self-defense is not premediated (the aggressor chooses the time and place of the shootout, not the victim), and it is not secret; the aggressor fully anticipates (or should anticipate) that you will fight back.  And of course, it is not murder.

What about strikes in retaliation?  Even then, your enemy is entitled to a fair trial (innocent until proven guilty).  So of course, you can not hire a sniper to get rid of him; you have to put handcuffs on him and haul him into court to be tried by a jury of his peers.  Of course, I would not want the task of trying to arrest a scary dude; that is why we have the division of labor (hire a legitimate detective agency to do the hard work).

So my point is, assassins are never legitimate and serve no useful purpose in a free society.

"As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable."

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 7,105
Points 115,240
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

why cant killing in self defense be premeditated? i can plan to do it should anyone attack me. i can prepare. i can arrange for an assasin to slay my enemy whilst i am attacked.

if i am not behaving from instinct then my thoughts determine my physical momevents, this means some meditation has gone wherein i calculated what action to take. so perhaps self-defense is premeditated?

why cant killing in self-defense be secret?. my attacker may attack me when i am anonymous, wearing a mask, and so when i fight back, he doesnt know who he fights. further if i self-defend by engaging a proxy, my proxy could be secretive . (a proxy could be an assasin for example)

Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid

Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 659
Points 13,990
ama gi replied on Sat, Mar 21 2009 6:55 PM

nirgrahamUK:
why cant killing in self defense be premeditated? i can plan to do it should anyone attack me. i can prepare. i can arrange for an assasin to slay my enemy whilst i am attacked.

How exactly are you doing this unless you know the exact time and place of an attack in advance?  "Well, I'll hire my assassin to watch me/my house/my property constantly!"  Well, then he isn't an assassin; he is an armed guard.

nirgrahamUK:
if i am not behaving from instinct then my thoughts determine my physical momevents, this means some meditation has gone wherein i calculated what action to take. so perhaps self-defense is premeditated?

No pal.  "Premeditated" means you've completely planned out what you will do and do it.  If somebody breaks into my house and I shoot him, that is not "premeditated" because I didn't make up that morning and decide to kill somebody.  At best, I've had 20 seconds' notice.

An assassin is somebody who hunts down and murders a specific victim for hire.  That is far different from shooting in self-defense.

"As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable."

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 7,105
Points 115,240
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

send out a bat signal to the killer bat dude?

premeditated can be seconds, pre doesnt mean 'several hours passed'

some people are involved in acts of aggression around the clock so bumping them off is in defense of said criminals victims.

Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid

Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 7,105
Points 115,240
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

but lets not fight and bicker about who killed who Big Smile

Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid

Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,651
Points 51,325
Moderator

No. You are wrong.

Natural law does not mean "survival of the fittest" or "survival of the most powerful." Natural law dictates that every human being, with a few exceptions including the brain-dead, has the right of self-ownership. From this right, we derive the fact that anyone who violates the self-ownership of another, in other words, anyone who initiates force or aggression against another, is violating natural law, and therefore subject to natural justice.

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 73
Points 1,435
Panarchy replied on Sat, Mar 21 2009 9:28 PM

^Hmm... now I'm confused about Freedom...

ama gi:
No pal.  "Premeditated" means you've completely planned out what you will do and do it.  If somebody breaks into my house and I shoot him, that is not "premeditated" because I didn't make up that morning and decide to kill somebody.  At best, I've had 20 seconds' notice.

Okay, so someone breaks into your house. Having the gun in your drawer (or wherever) is premeditated in case of attack, right?

So in your example, that would amount to premeditated self-defence... right?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 122
Points 2,205
BobT replied on Sat, Mar 21 2009 9:45 PM

Panarchy:

Okay, so someone breaks into your house. Having the gun in your drawer (or wherever) is premeditated in case of attack, right?

So in your example, that would amount to premeditated self-defence... right?

Having a gun in your drawer is not "premeditated self-defense"

Its being prepared to defend yourself. "Meditated" means that you plan to perform a specific act, as in the target, time, place, etc. "Pre" in this case means "before the situation arises in which you need to protect yourself." Once an attacker enters your home, and you grab your gun, it is not premeditated, it is reacting to the situation.

I can't really think of any way there could even be "premeditated self-defense." Maybe if you know that someone is coming to hurt you, and you prepare yourself to fight back, but that is rare, and I still think that "premeditated self-defense" is a poor way of wording it.

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 73
Points 1,435
Panarchy replied on Sat, Mar 21 2009 10:01 PM

So if you heard someone was out for you, and you 'built up', wouldn't that count as premeditated self-defense?

Or if you learn some asian discipline (Kung Fu!!!) that teaches you self-defence, then wouldn't that count as being prepared for attack? In which case, if there was an attack, you'd be prepared, because of a previous pre-meditation. In which case it would be premeditated self-defense, correct?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 122
Points 2,205
BobT replied on Sat, Mar 21 2009 10:50 PM

Panarchy:

So if you heard someone was out for you, and you 'built up', wouldn't that count as premeditated self-defense?

Or if you learn some asian discipline (Kung Fu!!!) that teaches you self-defence, then wouldn't that count as being prepared for attack? In which case, if there was an attack, you'd be prepared, because of a previous pre-meditation. In which case it would be premeditated self-defense, correct?

I absolutely think learning self-defense is preparing for an attack. But you aren't exactly "premeditating" anything.  I think premeditation, especially in the legal context, implies that you are planning out a specific action against a specific person. I do not think that being prepared for an attack is the same thing. 

In the case of knowing for sure that someone is coming to attack you, again I would say that you could call it "premeditated self-defense." I just think it misses the connotation of the phrase, because you are still reacting to some one else's threat, as opposed to actively planning to do something. I think planning out a response to something that is going to be happen is different than planning to do something yourself.

Also, I forget why this matters... >_>

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,511
Points 31,955

BobT:
Also, I forget why this matters... >_>

It doesn't: yet we must go on silly language debate before everyone admits that killing in premeditation is wrong.

Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.

          - Edmund Burke

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 659
Points 13,990
ama gi replied on Sat, Mar 21 2009 11:26 PM

laminustacitus:
killing in premeditation is wrong.

Yes.  Ergo, assassination is wrong.

(can't let this wander too far from the original subject)

"As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable."

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 244
Points 4,890

GilesStratton:

What are you talking about?

I guess I didn't make myself understandable. I'll try to rephrase.

I'm merely advocating Rothbards libertarian "legal code" as opposed to no objective legality . Natural law as opposed to legislation. Let me see if I can explain. When someone says that libertarianism holds the non-agression principal as the fundamentals of natural law, he has implicitly accepted a centralized "system of law". But what Panarchy seems to be advocating is libertarianism without the objective law, without the NAP (this could be called a "fully decentralized system of law"). In which case, law becomes the whim of a relative majority - someone could be "legaly" "murdered" based on the fact that the relative majority wished it.

It must be observed that I am not talking about a system of courts, which should be decentralized, but I advocate an objective libertarian "legal code". 

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 73
Points 1,435
Panarchy replied on Sun, Mar 22 2009 12:13 AM

BobT:
I absolutely think learning self-defense is preparing for an attack. But you aren't exactly "premeditating" anything.  I think premeditation, especially in the legal context, implies that you are planning out a specific action against a specific person. I do not think that being prepared for an attack is the same thing.

A specific attack against a specific person?

What if you're waiting in the alley, with a knife, waiting for no specific person to walk into the alley so you can rob &/or kill them? Then if that random person, because he was walking around at night, decided to carry a firearm on his person, in premeditation to a robbery/fight, and he shot that person who was waiting in the alley who tried to rob/kill him?

Would that be premeditated self-defence?

JackSkylark:
I'm merely advocating Rothbards libertarian "legal code" as opposed to no objective legality . Natural law as opposed to legislation. Let me see if I can explain. When someone says that libertarianism holds the non-agression principal as the fundamentals of natural law, he has implicitly accepted a centralized "system of law". But what Panarchy seems to be advocating is libertarianism without the objective law, without the NAP (this could be called a "fully decentralized system of law"). In which case, law becomes the whim of a relative majority - someone could be "legaly" "murdered" based on the fact that the relative majority wished it.

It must be observed that I am not talking about a system of courts, which should be decentralized, but I advocate an objective libertarian "legal code". 

My brother owns a lot of libertarian books. If you can please specify which Rothbard book the term 'legal code' was coined, I'll have a read of it.

Thanks in advance,

Panarchy

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,255
Points 80,815
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

^What he said.

Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (35 items) | RSS