Marko:I'm being asked to explain myself more a lot here. I try, but it doesn't seem to do a lot of good. Why don't you do me a favor and give me your anwser to the earlier stated rapist-who-shuns-threat-of-lethal-force scenario first? Is it OK to shoot a rapist thus potentially killing them in order to stop an ongoing rape when the rapist leaves you with no other choice? (Lets say that you are a bystander rather than the victim and the rapist is unresponsive to your warnings that you will shoot, lets say he is also on some platform you can not reach thus eliminating the possibility of you restraining him without the gun, and eliminating the possibility of a shot you could be certain of would incapacitate the rapist but not result in his death.) I'll remind you the victim is not herself in immediate mortal danger from the rapist. So, if proportionality in defense is valid then the only way you can be certain of not breaking any rights is by letting the rape finish. Or am I wrong?
You're not addressing me directly here, but I hope you don't mind if I offer a response. I think it's morally permissible to incapacitate the rapist, as that renders him unable to continue the aggression. But rape per se does not typically lead to loss of life, so killing a rapist simply for the rape he committed would be a violation of his rights IMHO. The counter-argument to that is rape typically involves the rapist completely overpowering his victim, so the victim has no way of knowing whether the rapist will then murder her after the rape. It seems reasonable to me for the victim to assume that her life is indeed in danger.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
What I don't get, and perhaps I missed something trying to read this thick thread, is how any of this applies to the real world? I have to agree with what Marko says here on a "gut morality" level, if that makes any sense. Using the least amount of force necessary even up to killing to protect yourself definitely but also your property feels like the right thing to do to me. But is anyone here trying to say their preferred outcome will happen in Ancapistan? (love that word)
In Marko's rape scenario I think murder is worse than rape (I can't prove that one is objectively "worse" though,) but I think one is still justified to kill under direct threat of rape if that is what it takes to end it - they have plain risked their life to get a poke at this and they're gonna die if I had a choice. So what? Turning things to a lesser scenario makes things more fuzzy, what if you walked in on some dude and your wife getting it on? Now she is not your property, but every guy I've ever heard think of this happening would be O.K. with blowing that guy away (sometimes her too) but I actually think that action would still be legitimately punishable murder. So what?
Sorry if I make no sense here, how can any of this libertarian stuff actually translate to the outcome of private law?
Well, I certainly hope that, in a real-world "Ancapistan", a person would be held liable for murder if he blows away his wife's lover (and possibly also his wife herself).
Ya I certainly hope so too, guess theres no way to turn that "hope" into an "will be" since we can't tell the future. I keep telling myself to go back to the economics and this is why. Moral dilemmas suck me in and I can't ever get out lol...
I think it's morally permissible to incapacitate the rapist, as that renders him unable to continue the aggression. But rape per se does not typically lead to loss of life, so killing a rapist simply for the rape he committed would be a violation of his rights IMHO. The counter-argument to that is rape typically involves the rapist completely overpowering his victim, so the victim has no way of knowing whether the rapist will then murder her after the rape. It seems reasonable to me for the victim to assume that her life is indeed in danger.
When it comes to lethal force, I prefer incapacitating force over that, as incapacitating force is not necessarily lethal.
But rape per se does not typically lead to loss of life, so killing a rapist simply for the rape he committed would be a violation of his rights IMHO. The counter-argument to that is rape typically involves the rapist completely overpowering his victim, so the victim has no way of knowing whether the rapist will then murder her after the rape.
...rape typically involves the rapist completely overpowering his victim, so the victim has no way of knowing whether the rapist will then murder her after the rape. It seems reasonable to me for the victim to assume that her life is indeed in danger.
What I don't get, and perhaps I missed something trying to read this thick thread, is how any of this applies to the real world?
One application is that if I authorize you only to perform those acts against an invader of my property that stem from my right to defense, and I authorize Autolykos only to perform those acts against an invader that stem from my right to enact retribution, I may be authorizing you to bring to be bear wildly different levels of force on my behalf. Depending on the crime and the circumstances of thereof you may be liable for bringing force to bear which did not exceed that which I as the victim had the right to inflict for the purpose of retribution, but which was in excess of that sufficient for a successful defense. Likewise, in different circumstances, Autolykos may be liable for bringing force to bear against the aggressor of a kind which I as the victim had the right to resort to to stop irreparable damage to my person or property while that damage was being inflicted, but which was not actually brought to bear against me. In RL examples this means that if I am toiling under a foreign military occupation it is OK for you to plant roadside bombs aiming to inflict severe wounds against the occupying troops as part of my bid at defense against determined trespass, but it is not permissible for Autolykos to seek out former occupying soldiers and plant roadside bombs against them in their own countries for punishment of trespass long past. This means that if I am murdered and the perpetrator turns himself in of his own accord Autolykos may stil execute him to enact retribution, but you on the other hand may not lay a finger on him.
Marko: In absolutely every instance of rape ever to occur?? You're sure of that? You don't think in countless cases of rape that have taken place in the history of time there could not have been one or two where this was not the case, where the victim or its agent in fact knew for a fact the victim's bare life was not in danger?
If you overpower someone, you have the power of life and death over them. The overpowered may morally use all means necessary to get out from that state of total and defenseless coercion. And if the aggressor attempts to prevent this they may use all means necessary to prevent them from stopping them attaining the natural state of freedom again. Thus, the slave may morally attempt escape, and if prevented from escaping, may use force to ensure his escape, including attacking the aggressor to ensure escape. And that can mean bodily harm if the coerced has no other choice.
The line of morality lays in how much force the aggressor uses to prevent escape. If the aggressor escalates to threat of serious bodily and/or lethal threat, the "defensor" may respond in kind.
So, if a slave or someone threatened with being raped or overpowered, were to simply kill an aggressor offering no resistance, of course that would be crossing the line and they'd be committing a crime themselves.
Marko:The fact I am able to agree with everything here, makes me feel this response skirts the issue.
What issue do you think I'm skirting? Keep in mind that the post of yours that I was responding to wasn't addressed to me at all.
Marko:Jet the agent of the victim may use force that is not intended to kill the rapist, but to incapacitate him, if possible without killing him, and jet have this incapacitating force end up killing the rapist as well as incapacitating him. In this case the agent has in fact used lethal force. I agree the agent of the victim has for the purposes of defense only the right to shoot for the purpose of incapacitating the aggressor, and not for the purpose of killing him. However, intention of the shooter do not determine what kind of force will his shooting turn out to be, merely incapacitating force, or both incapacitating and lethal force. This is instead determined by circumstances beyond his control, circumstances controlled by the aggressor. If the rapist makes himself difficult for the agent to incapacitate without risking the rapists' life then that is his own problem. The victim shouldn't suffer for that.
The amount of force used by the victim in defense is entirely up to the victim. The amount of force necessary to incapacitate the rapist is not. While I agree that incapacitating force can turn out (i.e. ex post facto) to be lethal force, there is a fact about whether the victim's intent was to kill or just to incapacitate. Strictly speaking, that intent is unknowable to anyone else, and I imagine in many (if not most) cases there wouldn't be sufficient evidence to entertain the notion that the victim intended to kill. I guess my point is that, in my opinion, intentionally killing a rapist while engaging in the act of rape constitutes murder, and thus aggression, and is therefore morally wrong.
Marko:The latter is not a counter-argument to the first. To think so entails conflating retaliation and defense. In the second case the rapist would not be killed for the rape he committed. He would be killed (read dealt an incapacitating wound which would also turn out to be mortal though it was intention of the shooter in firing to deal a wound which would be incapacitating but if possible not mortal) because that was the only way to stop further irreparable harm to the victim.
I see what you mean. Thanks for pointing that out. Since I posted that a while ago, I can't remember why I wrote it the way I did. IIRC, I actually meant to refer to the notion of the rapist being killed in the act of rape (i.e. simply for the act he's committing, not the one he already committed) would be a violation of his rights. That's the only way my subsequent sentence about the counter-argument makes sense.
On the other hand, I think Rothbard rejected the concept of retaliation and focused entirely on defense and restitution. (I don't have any of his works right here with me, so please correct me if I'm wrong.) The notion that one is justified to repel any and all aggression with lethal force and lethal intent strikes me as letting trespassers be shot and killed outright. I think that's why Rothbard focuses not only on proportionate restitution, but also on proportionate defense.
Marko:In absolutely every instance of rape ever to occur?? You're sure of that? You don't think in countless cases of rape that have taken place in the history of time there could not have been one or two where this was not the case, where the victim or its agent in fact knew for a fact the victim's bare life was not in danger?
Reading what I wrote again, I think I was a bit sloppy. What I meant was that, in a rape situation where the victim has been (or feels) completely overpowered by the rapist, it seems reasonable to me for the victim to assume that her life is indeed in danger, as she has no real way of knowing whether the rapist will murder her after raping her. But if a rape victim knew for a fact that her life was not in danger, then I think it would be immoral for her to kill or to try to kill the rapist while engaged in the act.
Marko:I don't know where the problem is, maybe it's me, but I have grown frustrated that you can't seem to just give me a straigth answer.
Well it's certainly not my intention to frustrate you. However, I don't think I have a straight answer yet, because I think this subject is very complex and nuanced.
What issue do you think I'm skirting?
More than anything I wanted you to give me a straightforward answer to the question posed in my example, and you finally did that below so we're fine.
While I agree that incapacitating force can turn out (i.e. ex post facto) to be lethal force, there is a fact about whether the victim's intent was to kill or just to incapacitate. Strictly speaking, that intent is unknowable to anyone else, and I imagine in many (if not most) cases there wouldn't be sufficient evidence to entertain the notion that the victim intended to kill. I guess my point is that, in my opinion, intentionally killing a rapist while engaging in the act of rape constitutes murder, and thus aggression, and is therefore morally wrong.
You seem to use the word 'intent' in its broad meaning that is not synonymous with 'purpose in action' but is synonymous with 'purpose in action' plus 'all consequences of action known in advance'. What if the victim being raped is armed with a magic device that is only capable of dealing out lethal force? (I should have thought of this earlier.) If she terminates the rape by using it on the rapist it is impossible for her to say she did not intend for the rapist to die. She may only say killing him was not her purpose in dishing out lethal force, that her purpose in firing was to terminate the rape. I don't think 'intent' in its broad meaning is relevant, 'purpose of action' is a term that isolates the relevant part better.
On the other hand, I think Rothbard rejected the concept of retaliation and focused entirely on defense and restitution. (I don't have any of his works right here with me, so please correct me if I'm wrong.)
Rothbard's writing on this is less than perfect. As said he even writes about retaliation in the chapter on defense, so it doesn't seem as if he had the most organized thoughts on this. I think Kinsella represents the present libertarian cutting edge on this and he very much bases himself off retalliation.
The notion that one is justified to repel any and all aggression with lethal force and lethal intent strikes me as letting trespassers be shot and killed outright.
Please don't misrepresent where I stand. Any type of aggression may be responded to with lethal force, but only under very specific circumstances so it is not the case all aggression may be defended against in such a way.
Reading what I wrote again, I think I was a bit sloppy. What I meant was that, in a rape situation where the victim has been (or feels) completely overpowered by the rapist, it seems reasonable to me for the victim to assume that her life is indeed in danger, as she has no real way of knowing whether the rapist will murder her after raping her.
I understood that perfectly, but I was trying to isolate the gist of the problem better by removing this and other extra factors from my scenario whereas they kept being brought back in anyway leading to frustration.
But if a rape victim knew for a fact that her life was not in danger, then I think it would be immoral for her to kill or to try to kill the rapist while engaged in the act.
Thank you for the answer. That makes you coherent and willing to see your position out to its logical conclusions. This means it leaves very little room for me to show where you are wrong. I can only ask you to reconsider this, as it would appear your position is rather inhumane. It means that under certain (admittedly very specific and very unlikely) circumstances you would demand of a rape victim to continue to endure being raped. To my mind a Tolstoyan who is willing to see his position to its logical conclusions has to insist that a father has no right to stop a rape of his daughter, when the only way to do so would involve using force on his part. A consistent Tolstoyan must demand of the father to remain pacific and not interfere. Your position is different in degree only. You recognize the right of a rape victim to defend herself, but only up to a certain point. Once her attempts at defense reach a certain point of forcefulness you insist she is not allowed to attempt stil greater force. Instead reduced to ineffective methods she must effectively submit to continue being raped. Also the treshold you use to determine up to which point escalation in defense is permissible is by necessity arbitrary. You invoke proportionality as your objective yard stick, but you are forgetting there is no such thing as objective value. Being victim of assault may fall harder upon a ballerina than upon a street hoodlum. Likewise rape may fall harder upon some victim than if she were tortured to death instead. You would allow a victim to use lethal force to defend from attempted murder (once all other options were exhausted and proved ineffective because of the would be-murderer), but not against rape that to her is worse than death? Who are you to set the values for the victim like this? If damage on the victim is being imposed that the victim truly and sincerely deems is catasthrophic and irreperable then the victim may ultimately use whatever force proves the minimum necessary for a successful defense, lethal force included. The victim is not required to suffer irreperable damage for the sake of the criminal. A rapist who wants to preclude being killed in the act of rape must be willing to be thwarted with lesser force, such as a threat, otherwise if it comes to his death it is his own fault - it was he who brought the situation to that. Indeed why would you reward ruthlessnes, effectivness and persistance in criminals like this? According to your thinking once the criminal is sufficiently immune to efforts at thwarting him, the victim must now submit to it. What the hell kind of system is that? Does the victim have inalianable rights or not? Does a rape victim loses her rights not to be raped if she is being raped by someone strong enough she can not stop, short of killing him (with the afforementioned magical device)? (Whereas what rights the criminal has is irrelevant, since by creating the situation he effectively kills himself, so no violation of rights could have taken place. It is effectively a hostage/extortion situation where the criminal demands of the victim to either suffer permanent damage (which he has no right to demand) or to kill him.)