Shooting the bubblegum thief: Defending the shopkeeper

Rothbard writes:

pg. 80, Murray N. Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty. New York University Press, 1998.:

Secondly, we may ask: must we go along with those libertarians who claim that a storekeeper has the right to kill a lad as punishment for snatching a piece of his bubble gum? What we might call the “maximalist” position goes as follows: by stealing the bubble gum, the urchin puts himself outside the law. He demonstrates by his action that he does not hold or respect the correct theory of property rights. Therefore, he loses all all of his rights, and the storekeeper is within his rights to kill the lad in retaliation.

Well, let's hypothesize that the individual in question not a lad, but a fully grown adult, and the consequences of theft are clearly posted at the entrance of the store, but the scenario is otherwise the same. Than it would seem the storekeeper would be entirely justified.

If an individual enters into a restaurant and orders he implicitly agrees to pay the bill. By installing software with a EULA you agree to the terms of the agreement. So it is obvious that there are many situations where individuals enter into implicit agreements.

If two people voluntarily enter into a dual to the death, the winner cannot be considered a murderer. If two boxers put on a show, they cannot be charged with battery. People can and do legitimately agree to having bodily harm done to them.

Considering that individuals can enter into contracts implicitly and that they can agree to having bodily harm done to them, many if not most instances of 'maximalist' punishment which goes beyond proportionality are justified.

Why are you obsessed with killing petty thieves on the spot ?

Stephen Forde:

must we go along with those libertarians who claim that a storekeeper has the right to kill a lad as punishment for snatching a piece of his bubble gum?

OK, this is an issue of just punishment for crime, in order to take a life, one's life must be in jeopardy, a piece of bubble gum is not going to kill the shopkeeper, if the robber threatens the shopkeeper with a weapon, then it is apples and oranges, if the shopkeeper chases the person and he is injured in his fleeing, that is fine, if he dies while fleeing (running into traffic) still OK, but if the shopkeeper shoots him, that is just plain dumb to accept that as just response to petty theft...

The argument anti libs go with is either he shoots him or lets him steal, there are a myriad of other options out there...

Forde,

That was an example of the "maximalist position".  It is not Rothbard's as we know.  So you are saying the "maximalist position" is justified?  It was a question Rothbard was asking and he asked other questions too in that chapter.  Rothbard is in favor of proportionality.

I am not set in stone on repercussions personally.  I think the debate is still going.  But in this case I'm definitely against a store owner killing a lad or adult for taking a gum ball.  It would be absurd.  This seems silly.

Stephen Forde:

Well, let's hypothesize that the individual in question not a lad, but a fully grown adult, and the consequences of theft are clearly posted at the entrance of the store, but the scenario is otherwise the same. Than it would seem the storekeeper would be entirely justified.

The sign isn't a proper contract, since implied consent doesn't exist in a libertarian society, and it doesn't transfer title anyways. Thus, the shopkeeper can't claim extra punishment. Any extra punishment by the shopkeeper would be considered aggression and illegal. Regardless, in any scenario based on contract or not, extra punishment is always illegal aggression.

I like this topic. Much of the reason I joined these forums was to test my comprehension of Rothbard with scenarios like this. Still, that's just my guess. Am I right?

hashem:

The sign isn't a proper contract, since implied consent doesn't exist in a libertarian society, and it doesn't transfer title anyways. Thus, the shopkeeper can't claim extra punishment. Any extra punishment by the shopkeeper would be considered aggression and illegal. Regardless, in any scenario based on contract or not, extra punishment is always illegal aggression.

I think you are looking at this scenario the wrong way -- you are reading too much into it. 

First, the sign is a proper contract because it is posted for all to see before entering the property.  Technically, we should make allowances for people who can not read but those people will learn to cope in society by asking before entering. 

Second, you should not be talking about punishment.  This is where you are reading too much.  Rather, you should simply consider consequence.  The difference is subtle but punishment implies motives of the actor -- i.e., he is responding with a particular goal.  Whereas consequences stipulated in such a contract are independent of motives.  "If you do this, I will do that in response. Why I do that is none of your business, I do not need to justify it, if you enter my property you are explicitly consenting to my terms."  In essence, if you just look at it as consequence, you simplify the analysis as you should because you can never know the motives of an other person anyway. 

 

Charles, 

Whether or not its a consequence or punishment it is still the action after the event handled by a person.  I don't see the hang-up in why one word is better than the next.

Seems to me that could be a legitimate contract.  I don't think that storekeeper would get a lot of business with such policies though.

Charles Anthony:

First, the sign is a proper contract because it is posted for all to see before entering the property.  Technically, we should make allowances for people who can not read but those people will learn to cope in society by asking before entering. 

Nonsense.

Saying you have the right to do something and actually having the right are two different things.

Just because a person steps on a piece of property does not mean they surrender all rights to their body. A conflict of property rights has been created, but that does not mean that one right negates the other.

So your argument that a person only has as many rights as the owner of the property allows is false. A person has full ownership over their body, irrespective of location, that is proportionally reduced by committing aggression.

Rothbard's whole point, that you clearly missed, is that you can't do anything you want to someone just because they are on your land. Your so called contract is a merely a sign disagreeing with that simple fact.

I have to wonder, would you defend the enforcibility of a sign that read: "Anyone who walks on my lawn becomes my slave for life"?  After all, it fits the template.

Charles Anthony:

"If you do this, I will do that in response. Why I do that is none of your business, I do not need to justify it, if you enter my property you are explicitly consenting to my terms." 

JonBostwick:

Nonsense.

Saying you have the right to do something and actually having the right are two different things.

Just because a person steps on a piece of property does not mean they surrender all rights to their body. A conflict of property rights has been created, but that does not mean that one right negates the other.

So your argument that a person only has as many rights as the owner of the property allows is false. A person has full ownership over their body, irrespective of location, that is proportionally reduced by committing aggression.

Rothbard's whole point, that you clearly missed, is that you can't do anything you want to someone just because they are on your land. Your so called contract is a merely a sign disagreeing with that simple fact.

I will have to agree with that, you cannot kill a person that is on your property without the threat of death first being applied (self Defense)

 

Stephen Forde:

If two people voluntarily enter into a dual to the death, the winner cannot be considered a murderer. If two boxers put on a show, they cannot be charged with battery. People can and do legitimately agree to having bodily harm done to them.

You're trying to say that consenting to walking into a store or consenting to steal candy equals to consenting to being killed. There is a simple way to prove or disprove that, ask the thief if he consents to being killed.

The difference between a boxing match and your thief scenario is that the boxers actually do consent to the fight, and if they stop consenting to the fight they can quit. If a boxer contracts to fight but later wishes to withdraw, he can't be forced to fight. A boxer does not transfer away his right to his body, a contract is not a promise. It is a specific transfer of title over property; if you fight, we will pay you. If he is already paid but refuses to fight, ownership of the money reverts to the payor.

If the thief steals candy and refuses to let the shop keeper kill him, he has violated the contract of entry and gets kicked out.

Continuing the Rothbard quote [something I think is necessary for this topic]:

 

'I propose that this position suffers from a grotesque lack of proportion. By concentrating on the storekeeper’s right to his bubble gum, it totally ignores another highly precious property-right: every man’s—including the urchin’s—right of self-ownership. On what basis must we hold that a minuscule invasion of another’s property lays one forfeit to the total loss of one’s own? I propose another fundamental rule regarding crime: the criminal, or invader, loses his own right to the extent that he has deprived another man of his. If a man deprives another man of some of his self-ownership or its extension in physical property, to that extent does he lose his own rights.[5] From this principle immediately derives the proportionality theory of punishment-best summed up in the old adage: “let the punishment fit the crime.”[6']

Anarchist Cain:

Continuing the Rothbard quote [something I think is necessary for this topic]:

Thanks Cain, , or should I say Shin?

Ass dance my friend...ass dance.

JonBostwick:

So your argument that a person only has as many rights as the owner of the property allows is false. A person has full ownership over their body, irrespective of location, that is proportionally reduced by committing aggression.

JonBostwick:

If the thief steals candy and refuses to let the shop keeper kill him, he has violated the contract of entry and gets kicked out.

JonBostwick has summed it up. Although, I have to question the validity of a sign at an entrance being considered a contract in any proper sense. A proper contract transfers title, and implied consent doesn't exist.

wilderness:

Charles, 

Whether or not its a consequence or punishment it is still the action after the event handled by a person.  I don't see the hang-up in why one word is better than the next.

I point out the subtle difference in the language because there is no scientific nor objective way to distinguish an act of vengeance from an act of punishment. 

Often libertarians incorporate an actor's motives, goals or preferences as justifications for their actions.  Those people are severely confused and they do a major disservice to libertarian thought because now we have to determine whether the motives, goals or preferences have been met which is impossible.  You can never get into a person's mind.  For example, I may say that restitution requires a $1,000,000 dollars for driving over my seeing eye dog and we may all agree.  However, in actual fact, I just want to see the perpetrator go bankrupt.  You would never know the difference.  The same weakness in the argument applies if we say that a punishment/consequence is acceptable if it is proportional or in self-defense. 

The point being that punishment is arbitrary and subject to further dispute.  Putting qualifications on the consequences does not further the libertarian discussion of meting out justice. The only thing that reduces the arbitrariness is mutual consent to the terms of justice. 

 

 

JonBostwick:

Just because a person steps on a piece of property does not mean they surrender all rights to their body. A conflict of property rights has been created, but that does not mean that one right negates the other.

That is not the argument.  You are having trouble recognizing consent. 

My argument is that if a visitor freely steps on a piece of property AFTER reading the sign that stipulates the terms of a contract, the visitor has conceivably consented to the terms of the contract.  No more and no less.  The actual terms of the contract are irrelevent. 

Your argument is arbitrary.  Your argument suggests that the terms of the contract are null and void if they happen to include arbitrary consequences upon your body even if the two parties consent. 

 

JonBostwick:

So your argument that a person only has as many rights as the owner of the property allows is false.

No.  My argument is that the only intelligent rights that should be recognized are determined by consent and a mutual agreement.  The mutual agrement is in turn identified by the visitor making the decision to proceed on the property after having read the terms of the contract. 

 

JonBostwick:

A person has full ownership over their body, irrespective of location, that is proportionally reduced by committing aggression.

Your use of the term "proportionally" is your achilles heal.  

The only concept of proportion that is worthy of libertarian discussion is when it is agreed upon by the two parties.  The fact that it is proportional then becomes moot and it is simply an agreement of consequenses.  You or any other third party have nothing to say about it. 

 

JonBostwick:

Rothbard's whole point, that you clearly missed,

I know his point.  I am insisting that it is arbitrary and inconsistent with mutual consent. 

 

JonBostwick:

I have to wonder, would you defend the enforcibility of a sign that read: "Anyone who walks on my lawn becomes my slave for life"?  After all, it fits the template.

A few answers: 

1) What I would personally defend is irrelevent.  I am a Christian and I believe more and more in turning the other cheek.   If you want to hear more about how I reconcile that with my adherence to the non-aggression principle, I would love to expand upon that in a different thread. 

2) You are right.  It fits the template indeed.  What is wrong with it?  Your only argument amounts to nothing more than "Rothbard says it is wrong. Therefore, it must be wrong." 

3) The visitor who wants to become a slave for life might defend the enforcibility of that sign and it is no business of yours to stop him -- if you want to be a libertarian, that is. 

 

I have questions for you, JonB:

Faced with the same situation, would YOU mount a resistance to anybody who mutually agrees to being a slave for life with the owner of the lawn?  Would you deny anybody the right to offer themselves into slavery?  How much of your money would you spend to resist?  Would you risk your life to intervene as a Good Samaritan? 

 

 

@Charles: After all that writing, your argument is still an utter failure.

1) Implied consent doesn't exist. There is no such thing. The sign is not a binding contract.

2) Suppose for the sake of argument that the sign is a binding contract. Thus, I would sign it walking in, and would conditionally transfer title of my property. Now suppose I refused to consent to the terms of the sign. Then, if I stole the bubblegum, would I be free from all consequences?

3) What if I closed my eyes while walking into the store, and didn't read the sign?

Your questions boil down to the following:  "How do you determine that consent has been made?"  There is nothing unique about that problem to this scenario.  All legal issues must handle it and in Libertariana, they are handled by arbitration if a peaceful solution is what you seek. 

 

 

hashem:

1) Implied consent doesn't exist. There is no such thing. The sign is not a binding contract.

I am not saying there is implied consent.  I am saying there is simply consent.  The distinction between implied consent and explicit consent is arbitrary and again, if a dispute arises, it should be settled by arbitration. 

 

hashem:

2) Suppose for the sake of argument that the sign is a binding contract. Thus, I would sign it walking in, and would conditionally transfer title of my property. Now suppose I refused to consent to the terms of the sign. Then, if I stole the bubblegum, would I be free from all consequences?

If you refused to consent to the terms of the sign and yet, you still entered the property, you are simply tresspassing.  If you are expecting to walk on a property and violate the terms, the property owner would be wise to distrust you.  You certainly are dishonest. 

 

hashem:

3) What if I closed my eyes while walking into the store, and didn't read the sign?

What do you want? I can not predict the future.  However, my guess would be that the property owner would ask:  "Did you read the damn sign??" and ask you to leave.  If you are expecting me to say: "Yes, the property owner has the right to shoot you on sight." because it is consistent with my argument, then I will say "Yes, the property owner has the right to shoot you on sight but nobody has the magical ability to make a libertarian out of a non-libertarian.  Everybody else in the community is free to retaliate if they feel they have the moral right to do so.  I have no power to stop them."

No doubt killing a person for stealing bubble gum is neurotic and extreme, in my opinion even if it was technically sanctioned by a sign.  If you are looking for libertarian theory to solve this extreme dilemma, you will never find it.  You will face an infinite argument where I will always be able to retort: "Yeah, but what if you DID read the sign and feign ignorance?" 

However, I have faith in the market.  I trust that neurotic property owners will have a hard time surviving financially and that everybody else will ostracize them.  That is the most you will get from libertarian theory coupled with a bit of arbitration tossed into the mix. 

So you basically failed hard. Good job.

There is an answer: The sign is not a binding contract, and the sign can never be a binding contract because implied consent doesn't exist. Clearly then, if consent does indeed exist, then so also the right NOT to consent. So what if i refuse to consent to the sign, and I still enter property? Then you can't hold me to the terms of the sign, because it wasn't binding. The worst that can happen is I will be trespassing, and you may get compensated accordingly. You have no right to my person for trespassing. Case closed.

Suppose I tresspassed AND stole gum, all without consenting to your little sign. Then still, all you have against me is trespassing and stealing, and you can only justly punish me accordingly. There is a libertarian natural law answer to everything. Just because you can't figure it out doesn't mean it doesn't exist. In fact, it's taken multiple geniuses several centuries to figure as much as we have so far. I wouldn't expect you to know everything.

Charles Anthony:

wilderness:

Charles, 

Whether or not its a consequence or punishment it is still the action after the event handled by a person.  I don't see the hang-up in why one word is better than the next.

I point out the subtle difference in the language because there is no scientific nor objective way to distinguish an act of vengeance from an act of punishment.

Just so you know, I'm not arguing against using the concept "consequence".  It's valid.  But to hinge a concept on scientific objectivity isn't necessary especially when I can label an event "just punishment".  I have no quarrel either way.  They both have been used and seem to be valid.

Charles Anthony:

Often libertarians incorporate an actor's motives, goals or preferences as justifications for their actions.  Those people are severely confused and they do a major disservice to libertarian thought because now we have to determine whether the motives, goals or preferences have been met which is impossible.  You can never get into a person's mind.  For example, I may say that restitution requires a $1,000,000 dollars for driving over my seeing eye dog and we may all agree.  However, in actual fact, I just want to see the perpetrator go bankrupt.  You would never know the difference.  The same weakness in the argument applies if we say that a punishment/consequence is acceptable if it is proportional or in self-defense.

I agree totally here, which is an explanation of what just (justice) repercussions, punishments, and consequences, etc...  They can be whimsical and I know of no universal standards.  Not in the concepts, but in the event the concept is defining.  Somebody could ask for a million and the victim could be seeking more in terms of vengeance than justice and by doing so there could be more damage than help in what may develop.

Charles Anthony:

   

The point being that punishment is arbitrary and subject to further dispute.  Putting qualifications on the consequences does not further the libertarian discussion of meting out justice. The only thing that reduces the arbitrariness is mutual consent to the terms of justice.

I incline to agree, but of course deciding who is to play a part in the "mutual" aspect of the mutual consent is personally up for grabs, meaning, I can't say I have the firm knowledge that would convince me who the "mutual" party is. 

 

 

Charles Anthony:

No doubt killing a person for stealing bubble gum is neurotic and extreme, in my opinion even if it was technically sanctioned by a sign.  If you are looking for libertarian theory to solve this extreme dilemma, you will never find it.  You will face an infinite argument where I will always be able to retort: "Yeah, but what if you DID read the sign and feign ignorance?"

I don't see how a sign can give a store owner permission to violate a person's right of life (in this example).  Of course it is their property, but to kill somebody for stealing vacates reason.  That's like asking somebody over to visit to eat dinner and the driveway is a mile long in a field aka no obstructions from the front door.  You get there and the property owner says, "Ah, no dinner today I thought instead I'd give you 10 seconds to leave my property or else I shoot you cause now I don't want you here and thus you are trespassing."  Even natural law of human nature has some say in this.

Charles Anthony:

However, I have faith in the market.  I trust that neurotic property owners will have a hard time surviving financially and that everybody else will ostracize them.  That is the most you will get from libertarian theory coupled with a bit of arbitration tossed into the mix. 

Yes, I would hope in time, reason will be exercised and a bit of civility can muster it's way in.

Would anyone really want to ever frequent a store where you know the owner shot and killed a man for stealing bubblegum? Of course not.

Juan:

Why are you obsessed with killing petty thieves on the spot ?

I've worked in retail for too long.

 

Harry Felker:

this is an issue of just punishment for crime, in order to take a life, one's life must be in jeopardy

If it where an issue of punishment, you would be right. However, this is an issue of penalty clauses in agreements.

wilderness:

Forde,

That was an example of the "maximalist position".  It is not Rothbard's as we know.  So you are saying the "maximalist position" is justified?  It was a question Rothbard was asking and he asked other questions too in that chapter.  Rothbard is in favor of proportionality.

Yeah, I know what Rothbard was going for. I know what the orthodoxy is on these forums are with regard to punishment.

 

hashem:

The sign isn't a proper contract, since implied consent doesn't exist in a libertarian society, and it doesn't transfer title anyways. Thus, the shopkeeper can't claim extra punishment. Any extra punishment by the shopkeeper would be considered aggression and illegal. Regardless, in any scenario based on contract or not, extra punishment is always illegal aggression.

I like this topic. Much of the reason I joined these forums was to test my comprehension of Rothbard with scenarios like this. Still, that's just my guess. Am I right?

I'm pretty sure that Rothbard, Kinsella, and others would say that it would not be a valid contract (agreement) because an individual cannot transfer rights to their body because it is not alienable from their will. So they would probably consider me somewhat out to lunch. Rothbard discusses this in The Ethics of Liberty and Kinsella has a pretty good article which discusses this in the Literature section.

I'm pretty sure that Rothbard would be fine with implied consent, given his views on contractual copyright.

 

JonBostwick:

You're trying to say that consenting to walking into a store or consenting to steal candy equals to consenting to being killed. There is a simple way to prove or disprove that, ask the thief if he consents to being killed.

The difference between a boxing match and your thief scenario is that the boxers actually do consent to the fight, and if they stop consenting to the fight they can quit. If a boxer contracts to fight but later wishes to withdraw, he can't be forced to fight. A boxer does not transfer away his right to his body, a contract is not a promise. It is a specific transfer of title over property; if you fight, we will pay you. If he is already paid but refuses to fight, ownership of the money reverts to the payor.

If the thief steals candy and refuses to let the shop keeper kill him, he has violated the contract of entry and gets kicked out.

I'm trying to say that it is easier to get justice if the law is laid out beforehand for people to agree to or not. I suppose I could have used a less extreme example, but I really wanted to make the most extreme case possible so that there was no doubt that it was supraproportional.

I think that right now when stores catch shoplifters, the process is already supraproportional. Typically, some low IQ, underclass delinquent steals something of low value: deoderant, perfume, contraceptives, ect. The private investigator waits for him/her to leave the store without paying for it, follows him/her outside, flashes ID, brings the loser to the back, interrogates, then calls the cops. Afterward the cops show up, lay charges, slap on handcuffs, brings them down to the station, interrogates them, then releases them. I confess I don't know much about what happens next: how often the thing actually goes to trial, severity of sentence, and so on. Now some people might not agree that this is already more than proportional. I think it is. But what options are really open to a store owner? Do nothing about shoplifters, or use an unjust justice system. Well, I think that if you give people fair warning ahead of time, it's not the victim that should be left holding the bag. If a store posts a sign that says “Shoplifters will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law” they should be off the hook when it comes to Natural Law.

And in the bubblegum example, extreme but not unjust, all the shopkeeper has to do is post a sign which states, “by entering this premises you agree to the following terms.” I don't see what's so controversial about that. What do you think about Block's “murder park”? Or what about his idea that private road owners could set a death penalty for driving drunk on them. Can property owners set the terms of use for their property or not?

 

Anarchist Cain:

Continuing the Rothbard quote [something I think is necessary for this topic]:

 

'I propose that this position suffers from a grotesque lack of proportion. By concentrating on the storekeeper’s right to his bubble gum, it totally ignores another highly precious property-right: every man’s—including the urchin’s—right of self-ownership. On what basis must we hold that a minuscule invasion of another’s property lays one forfeit to the total loss of one’s own? I propose another fundamental rule regarding crime: the criminal, or invader, loses his own right to the extent that he has deprived another man of his. If a man deprives another man of some of his self-ownership or its extension in physical property, to that extent does he lose his own rights.[5] From this principle immediately derives the proportionality theory of punishment-best summed up in the old adage: “let the punishment fit the crime.”[6']

Thanx, how could I have missed that? Of course... This whole idea goes beyond proportionality.

Oh wait... that's the whole point.

Charles Anthony:

2) You are right.  It fits the template indeed.  What is wrong with it?  Your only argument amounts to nothing more than "Rothbard says it is wrong. Therefore, it must be wrong." 

Slave contract are a contradiction, thus unenforceable. A person can't consent to not have the ability to consent.

Charles Anthony:

3) The visitor who wants to become a slave for life might defend the enforcibility of that sign and it is no business of yours to stop him -- if you want to be a libertarian, that is. 

The visitor does not consent to enslavement, just as the thief does not consent to being killed. If either person did, there would be no conflict of interests. You are trying to perform some logical maneuvers to prove that stepping foot onto a space of earth translates into consenting to being enslaved, even against the party's objection.

Consent is not a one time occurrence. Crossing a threshold can never transfer away your ability to choose to leave again.

Charles Anthony:

Faced with the same situation, would YOU mount a resistance to anybody who mutually agrees to being a slave for life with the owner of the lawn?  Would you deny anybody the right to offer themselves into slavery?  How much of your money would you spend to resist?  Would you risk your life to intervene as a Good Samaritan? 

Someone who wants to be a slave isnt a slave, they are an employee. Someone who wants to quit their employment but is prevented is a slave.

hashem:

Although, I have to question the validity of a sign at an entrance being considered a contract in any proper sense.

You're right. The sign is not a contract, its just an advertisement of the terms of use. The terms would be just as valid if the sign was not there.

hashem:

So you basically failed hard. Good job.

No.  It is you who is failing to integrate the concepts of self-defense and arbitration into your argument for justice. 

 

hashem:

The worst that can happen is I will be trespassing, and you may get compensated accordingly. You have no right to my person for trespassing. Case closed.

Wrong.  The case is not closed.  This is where you fail: the worst that can happen is that I deem you to be a mortal threat because of your neurotic selfish desire to violate very simple rules that are posted on my property entrance and I shoot you on sight.  You are dead and the local arbitrator is called in by the insurance companies and says: "Yeah.  That guy who thinks he can walk into a shop with his eyes closed and argue his way around flagrantly disrespecting anybody else's property is a loose cannon.  People like that usually escalate their anti-social behavior to greater crimes and violence.  He deserved what he got. The shop keeper did this community a service by rooting out the scum." SLAM! the gavel hits the bench and everybody in the neighborhood agrees. 

This is where you fail: ultimately, arbitration is how disputes over justice are resolved and YOU have no power to decide how an arbitrator will rule. 

 

hashem:

There is a libertarian natural law answer to everything.

OK, then what is it in this case?  and who is going to pay for it? 

 

hashem:

Just because you can't figure it out doesn't mean it doesn't exist. In fact, it's taken multiple geniuses several centuries to figure as much as we have so far. I wouldn't expect you to know everything.

I am saying they have nothing to offer in objectively distinguishing an act of self-defense from an act of vengeance or restitution.  In the end, you are left having to arbitrate. 

 

 

 

JonBostwick:

You are trying to perform some logical maneuvers to prove that stepping foot onto a space of earth translates into consenting to being enslaved, even against the party's objection.

Wait a minute here.  I am trying logical maneuvers?  Go re-read what you wrote yourself. 

By your own admission, you are saying your own question is internally inconsistent and your own defintions are without merit.  You asked:  "I have to wonder, would you defend the enforcibility of a sign that read: "Anyone who walks on my lawn becomes my slave for life"?  After all, it fits the template." but now you are saying that the very concept that YOU introduced into the argument -- consensual slavery -- makes no sense.  So........  who is performing logical maneuvers???  I have to wonder myself, what was the purpose of your internally inconsistent question, JB? 

Anyway, by your own admission, once someone consents to being a slave, the concept of slavery ceases to exist -- he is an employee. This is where you fail: an outside party would never objectively know the difference. Thus, the libertarian solution can only be found through arbitration.  In other words, you have to look around, get a few clues, ask people a few questions and make a judgement call as to whether the situation is consensual or not.  There is no scientific Consent-O-Meter that libertarians have to solve the problem. 

 

 

Stephen Forde:

I'm trying to say that it is easier to get justice if the law is laid out beforehand for people to agree to or not. I suppose I could have used a less extreme example, but I really wanted to make the most extreme case possible so that there was no doubt that it was supraproportional.

You get it. 

 

 

 

 

wilderness:

I don't see how a sign can give a store owner permission to violate a person's right of life (in this example).  Of course it is their property, but to kill somebody for stealing vacates reason.  That's like asking somebody over to visit to eat dinner and the driveway is a mile long in a field aka no obstructions from the front door.  You get there and the property owner says, "Ah, no dinner today I thought instead I'd give you 10 seconds to leave my property or else I shoot you cause now I don't want you here and thus you are trespassing."  Even natural law of human nature has some say in this.

No.  Your analogy is erroneous. 

The sign simply clarifies to anybody what they should expect to follow.  It is the same as telling a person: "If you run off that cliff, you will fall on the rocks below."  The justice comes into play only with an assesment of the consensuality of the actions. 

 

Somebody might truly want to run off a cliff or become a slave or get shot with bubble gum or offer his life as a sacrifice to convince lawyers of the folly of their profession.  In many third world countries, suicide bombers kill themselves primarily to absolve their families of debt "owed" to them by drug loards and we pretend they are doing it to go get virgins in Heaven.  You can never know the motives behind the actions of a single person.  If you base your libertarian convictions on such omniscience, you will fail.  In the end, you have to rely on arbitration to glue everything together. 

 

 

 

wilderness:

Just so you know, I'm not arguing against using the concept "consequence".  It's valid.  But to hinge a concept on scientific objectivity isn't necessary especially when I can label an event "just punishment".  I have no quarrel either way.  They both have been used and seem to be valid.

I am still insisting that you are making a mistake because once you say "just" in a libertarian discussion, you are categorically implying something about the action which has not be clarified.  What you have to understand is that from an outsider's perspective, you can not always distinguish the actionsof self-defense, vengeance or restitution from each other. 

 

wilderness:

I incline to agree, but of course deciding who is to play a part in the "mutual" aspect of the mutual consent is personally up for grabs, meaning, I can't say I have the firm knowledge that would convince me who the "mutual" party is. 

That is correct too. 

 

Charles Anthony you are wrong. No matter WHAT (even if you hire drugged up shopkeepers and cracked out arbitrators) you cannot violate me more than I violate you. That's the end of the whole argument. Period. Everything else is "for the sake of argument":

To the extent that you do, YOU are the criminal. It wouldn't change if some methheaded orator genius convinced a whole country you were right, you'd still be wrong. And justly so.

Further, implied consent doesn't exist, no matter impure your meth is. Even if you fail to properly determine whether I consent or not, implied consent never exists.

Charles Anthony:

Yeah.  That guy who thinks he can walk into a shop with his eyes closed and argue his way around flagrantly disrespecting anybody else's property is a loose cannon.  People like that usually escalate their anti-social behavior to greater crimes and violence.  He deserved what he got.

Your arbitrator and insurance company would never exist because they are thoroughly insane. Your judge would be broke, your little community would disappear quickly, and your meth dealer would quickly follow suit. Whats more, being a potential future threat isn't a crime, and certainly not one punishable by being shot on sight. That's just dumb.

hashem:

Clearly then, if consent does indeed exist, then so also the right NOT to consent. So what if i refuse to consent to the sign, and I still enter property? Then you can't hold me to the terms of the sign, because it wasn't binding. The worst that can happen is I will be trespassing, and you may get compensated accordingly. You have no right to my person for trespassing. Case closed.

I haven't stolen. If I don't consent to your sign, then I my only crime is tresspassing. Surely only a crackhead would react as you do: "I deem you to be a mortal threat because of your neurotic selfish desire to violate very simple rules that are posted on my property entrance and I shoot you on sight." Utter failure. Admittedly, my only wrong was "violating very simple rules". Again, the problem is that I don't have to agree to your rules. If, then, I disagree and still enter, then my only crime is tresspassing. You can only punish me for trespassing. If you shoot me, then you are the criminal.

Picture your scenario:

A peaceful bubblegum shop on a sunny day. Security cameras rolling, 2 polite customers (nobody can tell if they read and/or consented to the arbitrary sign), 2 tellers chatting about Murray Rothbard's The Ethics of Liberty, and a shopkeeper keeping watch over it all. I stroll in whistling a jolly tune, and your shopkeeper flips, screaming, "A MORTAL THREAT! A NEUROTIC SELFISH VIOLATOR!!" and shoots me, spraying brain waste over all the bubblegum, the 2 customers, and the 2 tellers.

Surely, I deserved it. My heir steps in, we proceed to court, and nobody like you ever exists again. The local meth dealers go out of business. Case closed.

Eek.

Stephen Forde:

Juan:

Why are you obsessed with killing petty thieves on the spot ?

I've worked in retail for too long.

Well maybe you need to take a stress free vacation Stephen.  Going postal ring a bell?  I'm not being a smart-ass, but Juan asked a serious question and this is your answer.

wilderness:

Forde,

That was an example of the "maximalist position".  It is not Rothbard's as we know.  So you are saying the "maximalist position" is justified?  It was a question Rothbard was asking and he asked other questions too in that chapter.  Rothbard is in favor of proportionality.

Stephen Forde:

Yeah, I know what Rothbard was going for. I know what the orthodoxy is on these forums are with regard to punishment.

Good for you.

Stephen Forde:

Afterward the cops show up, lay charges, slap on handcuffs, brings them down to the station, interrogates them, then releases them. I confess I don't know much about what happens next: how often the thing actually goes to trial, severity of sentence, and so on. Now some people might not agree that this is already more than proportional. I think it is. But what options are really open to a store owner? Do nothing about shoplifters, or use an unjust justice system. Well, I think that if you give people fair warning ahead of time, it's not the victim that should be left holding the bag. If a store posts a sign that says “Shoplifters will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law” they should be off the hook when it comes to Natural Law.

And in the bubblegum example, extreme but not unjust, all the shopkeeper has to do is post a sign which states, “by entering this premises you agree to the following terms.” I don't see what's so controversial about that. What do you think about Block's “murder park”? Or what about his idea that private road owners could set a death penalty for driving drunk on them. Can property owners set the terms of use for their property or not?

Stephen,

So because in the current government a bubble gum lad goes to the cops and is freed you find that to be unjust and the store owner should have been able to kill him to prevent him from being freed.  

There is nothing set in stone on this inquiry of repercussions and how far any property owner is able to go in delivering their own form of justice is a discussion in a civil society coming to terms as any other concept.

Stephen do you know murder when you see it?  If you are trying to push for the property owner to be able to do anything on their property then you are asking to throw out natural law.  You are saying Bill can invite Bobby onto his property and then instantly shoot him by instantly saying he has trespassed.  And you don't see that as murder?    Your loose understanding of natural law and thus property rights is uncivil.

Charles Anthony:

wilderness:

I don't see how a sign can give a store owner permission to violate a person's right of life (in this example).  Of course it is their property, but to kill somebody for stealing vacates reason.  That's like asking somebody over to visit to eat dinner and the driveway is a mile long in a field aka no obstructions from the front door.  You get there and the property owner says, "Ah, no dinner today I thought instead I'd give you 10 seconds to leave my property or else I shoot you cause now I don't want you here and thus you are trespassing."  Even natural law of human nature has some say in this.

No.  Your analogy is erroneous. 

The sign simply clarifies to anybody what they should expect to follow.  It is the same as telling a person: "If you run off that cliff, you will fall on the rocks below."  The justice comes into play only with an assesment of the consensuality of the actions.

You do understand that my analogy was about an unjust situation don't you?

Charles Anthony:

Somebody might truly want to run off a cliff or become a slave or get shot with bubble gum or offer his life as a sacrifice to convince lawyers of the folly of their profession.  In many third world countries, suicide bombers kill themselves primarily to absolve their families of debt "owed" to them by drug loards and we pretend they are doing it to go get virgins in Heaven.  You can never know the motives behind the actions of a single person.  If you base your libertarian convictions on such omniscience, you will fail.  In the end, you have to rely on arbitration to glue everything together.

Can you spell out what I said you disagree with - with an example or something?

Charles Anthony:

wilderness:

Just so you know, I'm not arguing against using the concept "consequence".  It's valid.  But to hinge a concept on scientific objectivity isn't necessary especially when I can label an event "just punishment".  I have no quarrel either way.  They both have been used and seem to be valid.

I am still insisting that you are making a mistake because once you say "just" in a libertarian discussion, you are categorically implying something about the action which has not be clarified.  What you have to understand is that from an outsider's perspective, you can not always distinguish the actionsof self-defense, vengeance or restitution from each other.

And if I think it was just it was just.  If you don't, then you don't.  So what?

I think it was a not a consequence but the cause.  The cause of life after a store owner and bubble gum thief have met in a little town called Tomsville. Perspective... thus why dialogue.  Uniqueness isn't to be something of shame.   

wilderness:

Well maybe you need to take a stress free vacation Stephen.  Going postal ring a bell?  I'm not being a smart-ass, but Juan asked a serious question and this is your answer.

It wasn't a serious question. Neither was the answer. Postal? Lighten up a little.

 

wilderness:

wilderness:

Forde,

That was an example of the "maximalist position".  It is not Rothbard's as we know.  So you are saying the "maximalist position" is justified?  It was a question Rothbard was asking and he asked other questions too in that chapter.  Rothbard is in favor of proportionality.

Stephen Forde:

Yeah, I know what Rothbard was going for. I know what the orthodoxy is on these forums are with regard to punishment.

Good for you.

I guess I should have been a little more clear. Yes, the 'maximalist' position is justified, under certain conditions.

 

wilderness:

Stephen,

So because in the current government a bubble gum lad goes to the cops and is freed you find that to be unjust and the store owner should have been able to kill him to prevent him from being freed.  

What I thought I was getting at was this:

Stephen Forde:

Now some people might not agree that this is already more than proportional. I think it is. But what options are really open to a store owner? Do nothing about shoplifters, or use an unjust justice system. Well, I think that if you give people fair warning ahead of time, it's not the victim that should be left holding the bag. If a store posts a sign that says “Shoplifters will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law” they should be off the hook when it comes to Natural Law.

And in the bubblegum example, extreme but not unjust, all the shopkeeper has to do is post a sign which states, “by entering this premises you agree to the following terms.” I don't see what's so controversial about that.

 

wilderness:

There is nothing set in stone on this inquiry of repercussions and how far any property owner is able to go in delivering their own form of justice is a discussion in a civil society coming to terms as any other concept.

I don't think this is an inquiry into repercussions so much as an inquiry into the enforceability of certain types of agreements and whether or not they can be used as a means of solving certain issues relating to crime, specifically crimes where proportionaliy is not a viable option.

 

wilderness:

Stephen do you know murder when you see it?

Yes.

wilderness:

If you are trying to push for the property owner to be able to do anything on their property then you are asking to throw out natural law.

Yes

wilderness:

You are saying Bill can invite Bobby onto his property and then instantly shoot him by instantly saying he has trespassed.

No

wilderness:

And you don't see that as murder?  

Yes, I do.

wilderness:

Your loose understanding of natural law and thus property rights is uncivil.

I will agree with you if you can back it up. I'm open to being persuaded. I know I can make mistakes as well which is part of the reason why I throw ideas out and see what arguments they can withstand. What specific points do you disagree with? What are the principles you invoke against them? What does or does not constitute a valid agreement in your opinion? What do you think about penalty clauses? What's your position on voluntary slavery? What about organ sales? What do you think about Block's “murder park”? Or what about his idea that private road owners could set a death penalty for driving drunk on them?

Stephen Forde:

wilderness:

Well maybe you need to take a stress free vacation Stephen.  Going postal ring a bell?  I'm not being a smart-ass, but Juan asked a serious question and this is your answer.

It wasn't a serious question. Neither was the answer. Postal? Lighten up a little.

Thank goodness.  And I can't see if you are laughing or not, so, I'm glad you were laughing.

Stephen Forde:

wilderness:

wilderness:

Forde,

That was an example of the "maximalist position".  It is not Rothbard's as we know.  So you are saying the "maximalist position" is justified?  It was a question Rothbard was asking and he asked other questions too in that chapter.  Rothbard is in favor of proportionality.

Stephen Forde:

Yeah, I know what Rothbard was going for. I know what the orthodoxy is on these forums are with regard to punishment.

Good for you.

I guess I should have been a little more clear. Yes, the 'maximalist' position is justified, under certain conditions.

Could you be any the more vague again?  I guess *sigh* you could put forth an example other than killing a bubble gum lad, it would help.

wilderness:

Stephen,

So because in the current government a bubble gum lad goes to the cops and is freed you find that to be unjust and the store owner should have been able to kill him to prevent him from being freed.  

Stephen Forde:

What I thought I was getting at was this:

Now some people might not agree that this is already more than proportional. I think it is. But what options are really open to a store owner? Do nothing about shoplifters, or use an unjust justice system. Well, I think that if you give people fair warning ahead of time, it's not the victim that should be left holding the bag. If a store posts a sign that says “Shoplifters will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law” they should be off the hook when it comes to Natural Law.

And in the bubblegum example, extreme but not unjust, all the shopkeeper has to do is post a sign which states, “by entering this premises you agree to the following terms.” I don't see what's so controversial about that.

Well I see the controversy plain as day.  But the excitement is actually making me drowsy.  

wilderness:

There is nothing set in stone on this inquiry of repercussions and how far any property owner is able to go in delivering their own form of justice is a discussion in a civil society coming to terms as any other concept.

Stephen Forde:

I don't think this is an inquiry into repercussions so much as an inquiry into the enforceability of certain types of agreements and whether or not they can be used as a means of solving certain issues relating to crime, specifically crimes where proportionaliy is not a viable option.

Well you just defined what repercussions mean.  Yet I summed it up in one word:  repercussions.

wilderness:

If you are trying to push for the property owner to be able to do anything on their property then you are asking to throw out natural law.

Stephen Forde:

Yes

I see.  So murder is fine on somebody's own property and so is mugging a visitor, and rape them too.  I want no part of this sadistic property owner.  bye

Stephen Forde:

wilderness:

You are saying Bill can invite Bobby onto his property and then instantly shoot him by instantly saying he has trespassed.

No

Well hey yes you are cause who cares about natural law.  Bill is king.  But I will not pander to this anymore.

Stephen Forde:

wilderness:

And you don't see that as murder?  

Yes, I do.

And so does natural law.

Stephen Forde:

wilderness:

Your loose understanding of natural law and thus property rights is uncivil.

I will agree with you if you can back it up. I'm open to being persuaded. I know I can make mistakes as well which is part of the reason why I throw ideas out and see what arguments they can withstand. What specific points do you disagree with? What are the principles you invoke against them? What does or does not constitute a valid agreement in your opinion? What do you think about penalty clauses? What's your position on voluntary slavery? What about organ sales? What do you think about Block's “murder park”? Or what about his idea that private road owners could set a death penalty for driving drunk on them?

Well since I already made my position clear that I will not pander to this anymore and I have other things to do in my life I don't have the time at the moment to go through this with you.  Maybe somebody else will.  Sorry but my posts are consistently clear and I need not write them all over again in this one post.  Time will answer your questions.  I hope that's not too rough an answer for you.

 

wilderness:

So because in the current government a bubble gum lad goes to the cops and is freed you find that to be unjust and the store owner should have been able to kill him to prevent him from being freed.  

There is nothing set in stone on this inquiry of repercussions and how far any property owner is able to go in delivering their own form of justice is a discussion in a civil society coming to terms as any other concept.

Stephen do you know murder when you see it?  If you are trying to push for the property owner to be able to do anything on their property then you are asking to throw out natural law.  You are saying Bill can invite Bobby onto his property and then instantly shoot him by instantly saying he has trespassed.  And you don't see that as murder?    Your loose understanding of natural law and thus property rights is uncivil.

The case in question is not a matter of simple trespassing. It is not a matter of contracts implied or otherwise. The question is do you have the right to use violence to defend your property? It doesnt matter if it is a piece of bubblegum being stolen or someone burning down your home. Do you have the right to protect your property with violence agianst the perpetrator?

In your example of simple trespassing, what if the trespasser refuses to leave. Do you have the right to use violence to force him off your property?

Maybe this will help a little.

Introduction to Libertarianism II [15:17 - 16:37]:

Walter Block:

Let me talk a little bit about another institution; another favourite institution of mine that I call murder park. Now murder park is a stadium with walls twenty feet thick. And when you come into the park you pay your hundred bucks or whatever it is and you're give a pistol with six bullets. And you're told you can shoot anyone else in the park because everyone is there on the same basis. But there are rules; there are rules everywhere, you know. Every fifty minutes a bell rings and they cart out the dead bodies and they give new ammunition and you're not allowed then because the employees go and, you know, do this. And then you have at it again.

Now, would such a thing be legitimate? Well yeah, because you're not invading any innocent people. Everyone who is there, is there with the understanding that you can be killed. I really shouldn't call it murder park, because no murders take place in it, just justified killings. Right? Because everyone is there based on agreement. And the murder park, or killing park, or death park is a good analytic tool to see how far libertarianism can go in various directions.

Stephen Forde:

Maybe this will help a little.

It doesn't.

People in murder park want to be there, the killing is mutually agreed upon. But, again, the thief does not agree to being killed.

That's what you were trying to prove in your scenario remember? That the property owner can declare the right to kill anyone on their property, even should the victim disagree.

Charles Anthony:

 

JonBostwick:

You are trying to perform some logical maneuvers to prove that stepping foot onto a space of earth translates into consenting to being enslaved, even against the party's objection.

Wait a minute here.  I am trying logical maneuvers?  Go re-read what you wrote yourself. 

By your own admission, you are saying your own question is internally inconsistent and your own defintions are without merit.  You asked:  "I have to wonder, would you defend the enforcibility of a sign that read: "Anyone who walks on my lawn becomes my slave for life"?  After all, it fits the template." but now you are saying that the very concept that YOU introduced into the argument -- consensual slavery -- makes no sense.  So........  who is performing logical maneuvers???  I have to wonder myself, what was the purpose of your internally inconsistent question, JB? 

To see if you noticed the inconsistency. You didn't.

Perhaps my language was unclear.  I was lumping in the steal-and-get-murdered clause as a form of slavery, as it seeks to remove a person's ability to withhold consent. So I wasn't referencing just my lawn scenario but also the store scenario.

 

Charles Anthony:

Anyway, by your own admission, once someone consents to being a slave, the concept of slavery ceases to exist -- he is an employee. This is where you fail: an outside party would never objectively know the difference. Thus, the libertarian solution can only be found through arbitration. 

Arbitration has nothing to do with it.  A relationship can be ended unilaterally by either party. How do you know if a relationship is voluntary? Ask.

JonBostwick:

People in murder park want to be there, the killing is mutually agreed upon. But, again, the thief does not agree to being killed.

What would it take for there to be an indication that killing or an other terms are agreed upon? What would constitute a valid agreement? And what's your opinion on voluntary slavery? Can someone contract themselves into slavery?

Stephen Forde:

It wasn't a serious question. Neither was the answer.

Heh. But it was a serious question. Stephen seems to be interested in justifying the application of the death sentence on the spot and by people who are both party and judge. Frankly, it can't get any more...unjustifiable IMO. Since I find the position very unreasonable I wondered why he personally holds it.

And the answer "I work in retail" would have made some sense...had it been true.