Spideynw: Truth and Liberty: Spideynw:Nothing will happen to the parents, unless their neighbors take action. So why wouldn't a division of labor develop so that neighbours could call in a service, rather than having to take the risk themselves? What risk?
Truth and Liberty: Spideynw:Nothing will happen to the parents, unless their neighbors take action. So why wouldn't a division of labor develop so that neighbours could call in a service, rather than having to take the risk themselves?
Spideynw:Nothing will happen to the parents, unless their neighbors take action.
So why wouldn't a division of labor develop so that neighbours could call in a service, rather than having to take the risk themselves?
What risk?
Er... this risk...
Spideynw:Let's see you try to take someone's child away from them. And then let's see what society says about the parent shooting you in the head and taking him or her back.
Spideynw:If my neighbor harms his or her child, I do not have to do anything about it.
No you don't. Personally I'd want to do something about it, because I think child abuse is wrong. I think most people do.
Government Explained 2: The Special Piece of Paper
Law without Government
Truth and Liberty: filc:People will gravitate to PDA's with whom they ideologically align with and those PDA's will do whats best for business, by pleasing their customers and exploiting anyone's property they feel necessary to keep their customer base happy. A PDA which violates property rights will a) be liable to be prosecuted by another PDA, b) have to raise its prices to pay for the aggressive coercion, c) be judged extremely harshly by free-market regulators and the media, and d) lose customers because of the increased prices and loss of reputation. So PDA's will have strong incentives to use only defensive coercion. PDA's will not "naturally become political".
filc:People will gravitate to PDA's with whom they ideologically align with and those PDA's will do whats best for business, by pleasing their customers and exploiting anyone's property they feel necessary to keep their customer base happy.
A PDA which violates property rights will a) be liable to be prosecuted by another PDA, b) have to raise its prices to pay for the aggressive coercion, c) be judged extremely harshly by free-market regulators and the media, and d) lose customers because of the increased prices and loss of reputation. So PDA's will have strong incentives to use only defensive coercion. PDA's will not "naturally become political".
Or the largest PDA will become the most abusive and be justified simply by size, Again you have outlined justification for oppressing the minority via majority rules.
Truth and Liberty: filc:I guarantee you a criminal would rather spend the rest of his days in a sponsored prison rather then starve in his house. I wish I had your confidence that voluntary actions would be so effective, and that this would be sufficient for order.
filc:I guarantee you a criminal would rather spend the rest of his days in a sponsored prison rather then starve in his house.
I wish I had your confidence that voluntary actions would be so effective, and that this would be sufficient for order.
I would never expect a libertarian to have no faith in voluntary human action, or more commonly known as free markets.
Truth and Liberty: filc:Coersion must be abolished for a true free society to function as a free society. Abolished by who? And how?
filc:Coersion must be abolished for a true free society to function as a free society.
Abolished by who? And how?
Thanks to your ideologically oriented PDA and ideologically zelous subscribers you have stolen my property and turned it into a milk farm. :(
I ofcoarse, living in a rural area felt no need to hire a PDA short a very minimal small insurence company. Being rural they were generally small and did not have the resources to defend myself legally against your imperialism.
Truth and Liberty:Wait a minute. "Direct defense" is justified? Is that not a type of coercion?
Yes as clearly explained as ok via the non-aggresion principle. Indirect defense without contractual consent however is not defense at all, but offense. Defense on behalf of another without consent is a very dangerous thing to do, not to mention irresponsible.
filc, please read Kinsella's Punishment and Proportionality: The Estoppel Approach, and I will try to finish up what I was writing in a bit.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
I've only skimmed through most of this and I admit I need to do more reading. My issue behind these ideas are that punishment for some reason always need to be violence. The paper starts off on the premise that punishment is simply violence and must be forced.
My argument is punishment need not be violence at all.
At any rate I'll pull myself from the discussion as I think i have stated most everything I need to say and to be fair I'll have to read up further on some of the stuff you guys have posted.
filc: Truth and Liberty:Wait a minute. "Direct defense" is justified? Is that not a type of coercion? Yes as clearly explained as ok via the non-aggresion principle. Indirect defense without contractual consent however is not defense at all, but offense.
Yes as clearly explained as ok via the non-aggresion principle. Indirect defense without contractual consent however is not defense at all, but offense.
Let me give you a scenario. I want to better understand what you mean by indirect defense.
Suppose you and I are having a drink in a pub and you happen to have your phone out on the table in front of you. A hoodlum approaches us and he goes to grab your phone. It is obvious to both of us that he is about to steal it from you. Are you justified in using coercion (i.e. force, violence) to try and stop him? Am I?
Suppose he actually grabbed your phone. Now he is mocking you with it. You try voluntary actions to try and convince him to voluntarily give you your phone back. They don't work, he refuses to do so. Are you justified in using coercion against him to try and get your phone back? Am I?
filc:I ofcoarse, living in a rural area felt no need to hire a PDA short a very minimal small insurence company. Being rural they were generally small and did not have the resources to defend myself legally against your imperialism.
Yes, I agree voluntary actions alone could be enough in a rural area. But what about in cities?
And if my PDA started committing aggression against you or anyone else, I'd withdraw my custom immediately and find a more ethical (and cheaper, too) alternative PDA.
Truth and Liberty: Let me give you a scenario. I want to better understand what you mean by indirect defense. Suppose you and I are having a drink in a pub and you happen to have your phone out on the table in front of you. A hoodlum approaches us and he goes to grab your phone. It is obvious to both of us that he is about to steal it from you. Are you justified in using coercion (i.e. force, violence) to try and stop him? Am I? Suppose he actually grabbed your phone. Now he is mocking you with it. You try voluntary actions to try and convince him to voluntarily give you your phone back. They don't work, he refuses to do so. Are you justified in using coercion against him to try and get your phone back? Am I?
A) Neither of us are violating the hoodlums rights when defending myself to get my phone back.
B) I could easily verbally consent for your help to defend on my behalf. Without that consent though you may not realize that this hoodlum is my best friend and this is a long standing joke we have between each other. If you operate without my consent your instigating a fight with the supposed hoodlum without knowledge of the situation. A responsible person would ask if I knew the guy then promptly offer their assistance. They wouldn't forcefully push their assistance without consent.
C) The property owner of this bar would need to be responsible and probably ban that hoodlum from ever entering again. The owner of the bar could defend his property by force. But this is a defensive stance, not offensive as you stated. The property owner of the bar can take whatever means necessary without my consent because I am at his place voluntarily. If he wants to keep me as a customer he will do what pleases me. Pissing off my friend however would not be pleasing me.
Being rowdy on the other hand may disturb other customers and as such perhaps both myself and my friend would be ejected from the bar.
Truth and Liberty:Yes, I agree voluntary actions alone could be enough in a rural area. But what about in cities?
Would be far more effective in a city as voluntary cooperation is more important. In a rural area it's easier to be self sufficient. In a city individual cooperation is required to survive. Not everyone can have a self sustaining garden hanging off the balcony of their condo. In a voluntary society people can publicly declare criminals and business's would not do business with criminals for fear of associating with the guilty. Insurance providers would drop their service to known criminals until that person voluntarily returned his dues to society and society after a while felt they could do business with him again.
Criminal lists would be maintained by insurance providers or PDA's or community coops. Arbitrators could decide what a criminal would have to do to make up his wrong doing to society. That could be anything from selling their property to giving up their abused child. The actions would have to be done voluntarily but community voluntary persecution would continue until the criminal complied or left. In any of this no force is necessary beyond self defense. Self defense does not involve invading another man's property, regardless of his criminality.
Truth and Liberty:And if my PDA started committing aggression against you or anyone else, I'd withdraw my custom immediately and find a more ethical (and cheaper, too) alternative PDA.
It's great that your so rightchous but society has demonstrated that it is not. You may leave to an alternative PDA meanwhile more ideological zelouts would rally to the PDA exploiting folks whom they felt deserverd to be exploited based on whatever world view they held.
Considering how political the use of coersion could become you could face public scrutiny amongst peers for switching PDA's during such a time.
Truth and Liberty:No you don't. Personally I'd want to do something about it, because I think child abuse is wrong. I think most people do.
"Child abuse" is completely subjective. It sounds to me like you advocate mob rule. A lot of people think smoking marijuana is wrong as well as speeding. So what?
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Spideynw: Truth and Liberty:No you don't. Personally I'd want to do something about it, because I think child abuse is wrong. I think most people do. "Child abuse" is completely subjective. It sounds to me like you advocate mob rule. A lot of people think smoking marijuana is wrong as well as speeding. So what?
Give an example of murdering or raping a child that you would not call 'child abuse'.
E. R. Olovetto:Give an example of murdering or raping a child that you would not call 'child abuse'.
Murder, is not child abuse. Murder is murder, and in a stateless society, there would be no organization to punish the parent because some neutral third party thinks the parent should be punished.
Most people would probably agree that "rape" is child abuse. So what? You think the mob can extract or even will extract vengeance on the parent? I do not think anyone would, except the immediate family.
I cannot answer this setup question but what I can provide for you is an example of what some people consider to be child abuse and others not.
Corporal Punishment.
Myself personally find that corporal punishment is both necessary and beneficial to the child. To others it's abusive. Hence, the term is completely subjective. So the question is, am I abusing my child and by whos standards? If it's by the standards of a large PDA influenced by a large ideological body then the situation is no different then that of today. Someone else's ideological views are oppressed onto me and my family.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Spideynw:Murder, is not child abuse.
This is semantic bullshit.
Myself personally find that corporal punishment is both necessary and beneficial to the child.
It sounds to me like you advocate mob rule. A lot of people think smoking marijuana is wrong as well as speeding. So what?
filc:A) Neither of us are violating the hoodlums rights when defending myself to get my phone back.
I agree. So both preventative coercion and restitutive coercion are justifiable under libertarian law, because they are defensive coercion. Libertarian law only prohibits aggressive coercion.
filc:B) I could easily verbally consent for your help to defend on my behalf. Without that consent though you may not realize that this hoodlum is my best friend and this is a long standing joke we have between each other. If you operate without my consent your instigating a fight with the supposed hoodlum without knowledge of the situation. A responsible person would ask if I knew the guy then promptly offer their assistance. They wouldn't forcefully push their assistance without consent.
You're right, there could be a knowledge problem. But my scenario was to establish principles.
I agree with all you say about voluntary actions. They would be an important part of social order.
filc:It's great that your so rightchous but society has demonstrated that it is not.
Ethics matter to some people. Others (probably the majority) only care about the price. They will tend to choose cheaper PDA's, and purely defensive PDA's will (other things being equal) be cheaper than aggressive PDA's.
I don't think that many people will want to aggress against others so much that they're willing to pay a high cost to do it. I think even in the worst-case scenario - a popular, wealthy neoconservative cult that wanted to kill some group - the reputable PDA's and non-cult individuals would outnumber them and protect the threatened group and end the violence ASAP.
But the question of how a free society can stay free is an important. AJ recently made a great post about this, which I think hits the mark.
Juan:And you are the one whining about some solutions being 'coercive' ? Maybe you should be beaten up.
Check my premise and my argument. I have not contradicted myself. I have a right as owner of my property to discipline it as I please within reason obviously. If society feels I have crossed the line they are completly able to address me voluntarily in the manners I have demonstrated above.
Please don't derail the actual discussion at hand Juan.
And as I have stated above if I am infact causing harm to that child in the views of society I will be punished. It will be bad for me and my image to do so. The free market will operate on an individual level as normal and I could suffer all forms of losses of productivyt as society decided to persecute me for my actions.
Juan I think it's important for you to understand that I am not attacking you or anyone here. Quiet the opposite. I would appreciate it if you didn't try to find cheap red herrings to deter us from the discussion at hand. Thanks.
In my system I am free to practice whatever beleifs I like. Society will judge me freely on the open market whether or not it is accepted. In system provided by "Liberty" I am not granted that freedom. Instead another majorities beliefs will be oppressed on to me via force.
My way is the way of true libertarianism. If Muslims establish themselves in a geographical region no one has any moral right to take that land from them regardless of their ideological beliefs. In my society if people felt that strongly about it they could literally stop doing business with them. My way is the way of the market. Your way is the way of forcing people to comply into someone else's system.
I have a right as owner of my property to discipline it as I please within reason obviously.
Truth and Liberty:I agree. So both preventative coercion and restitutive coercion are justifiable under libertarian law, because they are defensive coercion. Libertarian law only prohibits aggressive coercion.
Accept that if you attacked the criminal without my consent or the consent of the bar owner you would be instigating the aggresion, not him. We are individuals, not ants. We are not a collective mind. We operate individually. So if you took action without consent you would be aggression.
Also, in this scenario lets say the thief made it to his home. Even with my consent if you broke into his house and took my phone you would be just as much of a criminal as him. My method is to make his home and his person publicly known and scrutinized. Your method is to walk up to his house and perpetuate the use of violence.
Truth and Liberty:I don't think that many people will want to aggress against others so much that they're willing to pay a high cost to do it. I think even in the worst-case scenario - a popular, wealthy neoconservative cult that wanted to kill some group - the reputable PDA's and non-cult individuals would outnumber them and protect the threatened group and end the violence ASAP.
I wish this were true but if our current culture is a representation of how perverted the idea of defense is then your statement is wrong. As republican's currently think its entirely OK to aggresse against others. My example is the war in the middle east.
My way is the way of true libertarianism.
Juan:I have a right as owner of my property to discipline it as I please within reason obviously. Children. Are. Not. Your. Property. Maybe you need to be beaten up by a guy four times your size until you get it ?
Red Herring.
Irrelevant from the topic at hand but actually proves my point that child abuse is completly subjective. A swat on the butt is not equivilent to beating your child up. Thanks for revealing however the common liberal doctrine that any physical encounter with your child is evil whether affectionately or disciplinary.
Stop trying to derail the topic.
For Juan.
This topic is about arbitrary use of law enforcement. Not about what is or is not child abuse. As the degree to what is child abuse is subjectively decided. You've made it apparent what your opinion is but we do not care. Go start another thread about it.
Irrelevant from the topic at hand but actually proves my point that child abuse is completly subjective.
A swat on the butt is not equivilent to beating your child up.
Thanks for revealing however the common liberal doctrine
Juan: bullshit
yes your posts so far have been as much.
Juan: the thread is about 'child molestation' or child abuse,
Wrong the thread is about what your going to DO about child abuse. Not about whether it's morally wrong or not. Please read the thread before post.
Juan: So, the wrong premise that you seem to hold - that children are property,
I actually don't beleive that children are property but again it proves how you've completly missed the point of my posts and have attempted to derail the topic into whether or not children are property or not. Why not start a new thread to support your fixation on this topic?
Juan: is central to the thread whereas your theories on non-aggressive rights-enforcement are NOT.
TO restate, the thread is not about whether or not child abuse is right or wrong. Its about what are YOU going to do about it. Try again, you can start with reading the thread.
Epic Fail. Juan. lol
This post is for Juan. I have conveniently re-posted the opening statement from Spidey so that you can stay on track.
Spideynw:If I molest my baby/toddler, what are you going to do about it, if anything? If you are going to do something about it, why do you think you have any right to do anything about it?(I am starting this one over. I will copy over any of the other posts from the other thread that I believe were relevant.)
filc: Accept that if you attacked the criminal without my consent or the consent of the bar owner you would be instigating the aggresion, not him... So if you took action without consent you would be aggression.
Accept that if you attacked the criminal without my consent or the consent of the bar owner you would be instigating the aggresion, not him... So if you took action without consent you would be aggression.
Possibly, if there was a knowledge problem. I might accidentally be committing aggression, in which case, yes I would be doing something wrong. I would hope that your friend-in-disguise would forgive me, given that you and he tricked me.
The question is: how do you give your consent? You yourself said a verbal contract was sufficient. Do you have to say "I hereby give you my permission to defend me from this hoodlum"? Or just "help me"? Or give me a nod? Or a facial expression which demonstrates to me that you could use my assistance? The courts would have to decide on a case-by-case basis whether consent was there. I think in this scenario, regardless of whether it was all a joke or not, a court would find that (given that I was sitting with you, and you and I are friends) I was using defensive coercion on your behalf, rather than committing a random act of aggression.
filc:Also, in this scenario lets say the thief made it to his home. Even with my consent if you broke into his house and took my phone you would be just as much of a criminal as him.
If the hoodlum wants to take me to court for house-breaking, he can do so. The court will have to decide whether my actions were proportionate to the crime (so my actions constitute merely defensive violence on your behalf) or disproportionate (so my actions constitute aggression).
filc:I wish this were true but if our current culture is a representation of how perverted the idea of defense is then your statement is wrong. As republican's currently think its entirely OK to aggresse against others. My example is the war in the middle east.
What % of Americans support the war? How many of these would do so if they had to pay the full cost themselves (rather than using government to steal it from everyone)? Would the soldiers of a PDA-army be as willing to murder innocents as those of government-army? The head of an aggressive PDA-army would be guilty of mass murder, and would have to face justice. What happens to mass murdering Presidents and Generals? If the invaded region is anarchic too, PDA's would be highly incentivized to protect the innocent people living there. If those people are poor, people would give more to charities that provide them with protection and aid.
PDA's are far less likely than government to engage in war, so the war in the middle east does not at all suggest that most people prefer violence, or that aggressive PDA's would be a major problem in a free world.
filc:I actually don't beleive that children are property
Wrong the thread is about what your going to DO about child abuse.
Spideynw:regardless of what you or anyone else may think, people will kill and molest their children.
So what? We don't suggest that Man will suddenly become angels without government, nor that such a miracle is necessary for private defense, security and justice to thrive. History shows that it has at times and nothing suggests that it can't again. First you were plain wrong about children's rights, now this is bordering on delusional, and you need to stop with the arguments from ignorance. I was skeptical and wrong about defense under anarchy at one point too. There is no reason to be ashamed to admit it.
PDAs will not exist. Individuals do not need massive protection, only government do.
without a government, you will have no way of punishing them for it, unless you take action yourself. So again, what are you going to do about it?
Unless you are very wealthy, your chance of having anything close to like a "personal army" is slim. You will be cowering with your pea-shooter as the local Pervhunt Inc. tactical unit swarms your home. Raise your gun to them and they won't think twice about dropping you. No other PDA will take action since Pervhunt has a wonderful reputation, while you ignored several requests to give DNA that was eventually shown to match what the school nurse found on your young daughter's underwear.
Voluntary, collective action is not the pervasive, coercive collectivism we regularly and justifiably demonize. It reminds me of statist or pseudo-libertarian, minarchist fearmongering when you repeatedly focus on what I, as an individual, will do. The provision of justice, police security, and defense against external states are services and nothing more. When I go into an unfamiliar grocery store to get a box of cheap popsicles in America, I expect to find they are orange, cherry and grape. Maybe there will be lime, banana, root beer, or something, but I don't expect to find a wall of toilet water popsicles earning shelf space. People won't pay for toilet water unless they are forced to. People will pay for police that punish child molesters.
Who gets to "assign a punishment" in a stateless society? There would be no rulers to enforce such a thing.
Ever hear the phrase, "The consumer is king."? PDAs will not be your private mafia unless you fully fund them yourself. You might think it nice to be able to get away with your crimes, but this simply can't be profitable in most cases. As a consumer, you will be funding a small portion of the security firm. They can't maintain their reputation or simultaneously protect the other customers when they assist you in your crimes. You aren't going to have much in the way of options if you don't want to pay for a firm that will punish you as well. Taking on the world isn't as easy as dipping your ice cube tray in the toilet. Anyhow, what we are really talking about is you forcing someone else to take your crap.
For the most part, all someone has to do is want to live their life in peace and decide to be patrons of police who punish molesters. Some of us will choose to be the police and put our lives on the line to protect the school nurse from the deranged dad. To paraphrase Rothbard: our primary task as libertarians for the foreseeable future is to educate people. Only some will ever need to be activists or take action against states or individual criminals.
You can advocate stuff like taxes or punishing abortions and think you are a libertarian, or one can think children have no rights and no law should protect them, but none of this is true. The statist take on equality is utopian because it is a literal impossibility. Part of this mythology supports the widespread acceptance of democracy and governmental violence. Our stance is that the only equality we should pursue is equality under the law, and reason tells us that children are human beings deserving similar rights to adults. So, you can tell me to shut up when I explore what rights one ought to have all you want. Doing that would set back the whole movement because a stateless society which I would personally want to live in will rest upon intersubjective agreement. These are the laws or guidelines I would pay for to be upheld, and possibly fight for.
No, because the baby/toddler would be unable to bring a case to court.
Libertarian law, as I explained earlier, accounts for guardianship. You have already been proven wrong about rights, as seen by most people, coming from "the ability to protest or object". If such a view was widely accepted, people would be regularly robbed when they are away at work or asleep, and nobody would act against it. Guardianship is a subset of ownership and these are juridical statuses which private courts are likely to uphold. Libertarians don't object to the use of aggression in response to the initiation of aggression. A guardian owns a child insomuch as he can represent the child like he was representing himself against someone who stole or damaged his property.
You can't continue to ignore what I said about how things become 'owned'. I appreciate that someone posted Block's paper on abandonment, because it uses the same idea. Raping a child can be said to be purely evil, because it in no way aids the child in their development to a status of moral agency. You just can't own a child in that manner under libertarian law. Likewise, locking a child in a closet would be forestalling their development, specifically their ability to learn language. This is a parallel to Block's donut example. Once you have done certain things, the child would be seen as either unowned or by default under the guardianship of the other parent or "co-owner".
You need to grasp these simple concepts before we deal with partial moral agency and divergent anarchic legal systems. You can't just shrug off reason because what we propose is not today's reality. Some of us have a genuine desire to end institutionalized violence and all of these ideas must be explored accurately. Libertarian law prescribes punishment for guardians who rape, murder, or permanently injure their child. It says nothing about what language a child learns, parents who force a child to go to bed, or similar things. This much is clear and these would be our widely accepted common law. There may also be grey areas for instances such as feeding a child something along the later part of the continuum from a healthy diet, to a regimen of McDonalds, to a non-fatal diet including rat poison. This is the arbitrary realm within which arbitrators work.
@filc: Much of what you said at first was sensible and much of this inquiry requires imaginative speculation. I don't want to go into the greatest detail on certain things like homeowner associations in this thread yet I have a few issues with what you wrote:
"The loophole here is, while it's great that you signed up with PDA_A in which you agree to not have any domestic violence within your premise. This neighber could decide not to hire that PDA or hire a different PDA that turns a blind eye to such activity. Now this may not be the case in all situations."
This is a genuine problem for any justice system, anarchic or not. Among people there is a fair consensus that molestation is wrong, to the point of making disagreements on its criminality almost a non-issue. For more divisive topics like abortion or capital punishment, we're left with an even more pressing need to complete the task below and a few categories of possibly outcome
We must determine and agree upon, as libertarians, the universal indicia of our legal philosophy. In other words, we use logic to decide upon an aspect of the philosophy that child molestation is clearly wrong and use proportionality to help determine what the maximum punishment ought to be with regards to the details of the crime. Of course, these are mere guidelines, and whatever arbitration systems that actually come about will at times have differences based on economic factors and/or cultural mores.
Then understanding this eventuality, we can observe some scenarios play out:
Libertarianism is not an all-encompassing philosophy, intended to assign rightness or wrongness to every action or explain the "meaning of life". It is a legal or political philosophy, and by political I mean dealing with interactions among people and things. Noumenal abstractions like "god" or "natural rights" hold some value but are beyond the limits of the logical model of our legal system. Our singular law is the non-aggression axiom. Concepts like property rights and homesteading are just elaborations we can use to uphold the doctrine.
"My argument is punishment need not be violence at all."
How would "punishment" be non-violent ever? As I mentioned before, the justification for the primacy of punishment over restitution is well founded. Let's lay that debate to rest for now. Only so much can be accomplished through 'extra-juridical' measures. The importance of these measures and parties besides disputants in a claim or the arbiter does exist though. When I say it is lawful to abandon guardianship of a three year old or evict a fetus who will almost certainly soon perish, this does not mean I would ever do or advocate such actions.
"Public scrutiny" or whatever extra-juridical measures would be ineffective in cases such as the polygamist, Mormon, self-sufficient warlord who also likes to enjoy young girls in the privacy of his compound. Can we then say justice has been served when the crime goes unpunished? The gaze of libertarian law is not confined by place or time. No criminal is safe from justice ex post facto, or after the fact.
Libertarian law would be in line with the ancient common law practice with regards to evidence, contrary to the 4th amendment of the US constitution. If I trespass and find evidence sufficient to convict you of child abuse, I've committed no crime. If I execute whom I believe to be a murderer and he is later found to be innocent, I've left myself open to the risk of being myself convicted of murder. How things might play out because of this is a lot more interesting than whining about subjectivity, so I am done for now. The non-aggression principle is a priori. We can find certainty without empirical definitions of "child abuse".
Juan: Fine, so what's your justification for child abuse in the form of 'corporal punishment' ?
Cual es tu problema chico? No puedes leer ingles? Porque me ataco especificalmente? I'm not sure if it's your english messing you up here or what but I never made an attempt to justify child abuse. As that has nothing to do with what we are talking about.
Juan: Since, according to you, 'child abuse' is 'subjective' your question doesn't make much sense.
It doesn't make much sense because you read a post entirely out of context and apparently are too lazy to get caught up on the entire topic at hand.
I have no justification for child abuse, we arn't talking about that. The topic isn't about whether it's wrong or right and in whos eyes, it's about what are you going to do about it. Porfavor, aprende como leer.
Juan:Anyway, what I'm going to do is whatever I 'subjectively' believe that is the 'subjectively' right thing to do.
And you should. You should demonstrate your discontent with such behavior, only you cannot stoop to his level by becoming a criminal yourself. What are you going to become batman and start breaking into supposed criminals homes at night and bring justice to those harmed? Please give me a break. You will get shot on your first night.
Why the personal attack dude?
Thanks for the non-hostile Post Truth and Liberty.
Truth and Liberty: The courts would have to decide on a case-by-case basis whether consent was there.
I agree.
Truth and Liberty:If the hoodlum wants to take me to court for house-breaking, he can do so. The court will have to decide whether my actions were proportionate to the crime (so my actions constitute merely defensive violence on your behalf) or disproportionate (so my actions constitute aggression).
Exactly. The court is going to rule in the direction that will mirror whatever is currently culturally accepted. If the court rules outside of what is culturally considered norm people would abandon that arbitrator. So we are in agreement.
filc:The court is going to rule in the direction that will mirror whatever is currently culturally accepted.
i think most of us libertarians here are agreed that what passes as currently culturally accepted norm is evil and unjust and is what we are all about changing.
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
Corporal Punishment. Myself personally find that corporal punishment is both necessary and beneficial to the child.
filc: Juan: And you are the one whining about some solutions being 'coercive' ? Maybe you should be beaten up. Check my premise and my argument. I have not contradicted myself. I have a right as owner of my property to discipline it as I please within reason obviously.
Juan: And you are the one whining about some solutions being 'coercive' ? Maybe you should be beaten up.
You should demonstrate your discontent with such behavior, only you cannot stoop to his level by becoming a criminal yourself. What are you going to become batman and start breaking into supposed criminals homes at night and bring justice to those harmed? Please give me a break. You will get shot on your first night.
nirgrahamUK:i think most of us libertarians here are agreed that what passes as currently culturally accepted norm is evil and unjust and is what we are all about changing.
I'm kind of coming from the idea that over a period of time culture can change, especially after people get comfortable. Obviously just after immediately starting a libertarian society I think most people will probably agree strongly to the protection of private property rights. That doesn't mean that over the coarse of 100 years that won't change.
Although it could be that in the absence of government cultural cancers like modern liberalism and conservatism would never be realized. My concern is that a PDA could assume a political roll and exploit itself on a minority that chose not to purchase an equivalently sized pda. Additionally the PDA in an effort to maximize profits and please it's consumers will be steared by it's customer base and those views may be radical depending on what is culturally expected.
I may be completely off basis and thats fine. ER has posted alot of good material and what I have read so far has been very beneficial. I appreciate him for writing up all of that.
Great post E.R.
E. R. Olovetto:As I mentioned before, the justification for the primacy of punishment over restitution is well founded. Let's lay that debate to rest for now.
Start a new thread on this subject when you're ready. I have not read much about this, and most of what I've read emphasizes restitution over punishment. Where can I find the arguments for the opposite?
nirgrahamUK:are you guys assuming the norms of a libertarian society, or of a collectivist society, or both or neither? just asking....
I'm assuming an anarchic society that is broadly libertarian, which is what I think anarchic society will tend towards.
E. R. Olovetto:How would "punishment" be non-violent ever?
The same way the market punishes a business for making a bad decision.
ER I need to fully read your post and havn't had a chance yet but should in a few minutes here. To respond to that specific quote however my remark would be as follows. Non-violent punishment is the same thing that happens to a business that makes a bad business decision. The free market punishes people not by slapping their wrist but by voluntarily choosing not to do business with them.
In our case the abusive father that was publicly scrutinized may find that he no longer has a job one day when he goes to work. And that the local markets choose to no longer do business with him. The criminal may in fact be aware of insurance provider criminal lists and be given a notice that his name will be posted unless his actions change. Everyone acts entirely voluntarily without violating anyone's property rights.
Truth and Liberty:Start a new thread on this subject when you're ready. I have not read much about this, and most of what I've read emphasizes restitution over punishment. Where can I find the arguments for the opposite?
Thanks and I tried my best. [edit again: This is the thread and I think this is Kinsella's important post, but I need to read over it again.]
I have been thinking most about the ethics of recapture or "costs of capture" recently. I think that more has been written about history and theory of private law than proportionality. I see little problems with both Kinsella and Block's takes on it, but they both supposedly have works coming out soon/next year specifically on law.
filc: E. R. Olovetto:How would "punishment" be non-violent ever? The same way the market punishes a business for making a bad decision. ER I need to fully read your post and havn't had a chance yet but should in a few minutes here. To respond to that specific quote however my remark would be as follows. Non-violent punishment is the same thing that happens to a business that makes a bad business decision. The free market punishes people not by slapping their wrist but by voluntarily choosing not to do business with them. In our case the abusive father that was publicly scrutinized may find that he no longer has a job one day when he goes to work. And that the local markets choose to no longer do business with him. The criminal may in fact be aware of insurance provider criminal lists and be given a notice that his name will be posted unless his actions change. Everyone acts entirely voluntarily without violating anyone's property rights.
I see what you are saying but this is just another semantics problem. What I mean is juridical punishment or using coercion justifiably. What you mean is what I kept referring to as 'extra-juridical measures', not using coercion. We need a better term maybe for these market pressures. Again, I don't think extra-juridical measures are sufficient at all. They will be a great aid in accomplishing restitution and discouraging crime though. Our hope is to make the victim whole and merely changing the criminal's future actions is insufficient. Imagine a destitute murderer who refuses all arbitration and will stubbornly refuse to attempt any restitution. Sometimes we'll have to just write off such people as a loss. Keep the estoppel thing in mind along with why criminals of different sorts might have any rights to violate at all.
ER. Your post was awesome. I can't thank you enough for posting something so insightful.
My assumption is that under 'extra-juridical measures' as you call it the criminal should extinguish his pool of staple goods and needed items, like food, and therefore out of sheer hunger be forced to comply with the local arbitrator or die from starvation. I see your argument however and indeed it points mine out as being to passive for some cases. Truth and Liberty has pointed out to me as well. It certainly does not get people who are held hostage, like an abused child, out of a home any faster.
Perhaps Extra-Juridical measures would be an augmentation and used prior to the use of force depending on situation.
Thanks filc. I don't think that using coercion as part of a proper legal system is incompatible with voluntarism. There we are concerned with political coercion under a different definition of "political". We're conditioned to think of politics as the quest for the reins of a monocentric legal order. What I had meant by libertarianism being a political philosophy too was more along the lines of the Aristotlean definition. That has its own flaws, but some helpful ideas as well.
Literally laying siege to a suspect's home would be forestalling and coercion. Implementing a boycott or or hiring ban on convicted molesters would be non-coercive, extra-juridical measures. These have their place and we would hope that the need to use coercion over time would decrease. I came across this article again that explains what we could expect fairly well I think, Benson's Customary Law with Private Means of Resolving Disputes and Dispensing Justice: A Description of a Modern System of Law and Order without State Coercion.