Under what conditions should someone be punished? When would it be justified? When would it not be?
Good question. To be honest, I really wouldn't mind if we went to an anti-war rally and jailed every single person waving a Socialist Worker sign. On the other hand, we're never going to accomplish anything if we have that attitude!
Don't allow leftists to play games with definitions! Some of the libertarian-leaning leftists at this forum will try to redefine "left-wing" back to its original defition (Third Estate, limited government, free-markets, laissez-faire reforms, etc.). Fine! We non-leftists can't stop them from using their own personal definitions; they can use whatever labels they want to describe any concept they want.However, they have the audacity to then use their personal definition of "left-wing" (remember, the original definition, which is no longer valid) to prove that modern leftists are more libertarian than modern rightists! They will say that libertarianism is "inherently leftist" (again, using the original, no longer valid definition), and use that to insist that we should prefer and side with modern leftists over modern rightists.
Question their motives.
Ego:Good question. To be honest, I really wouldn't mind if we went to an anti-war rally and jailed every single person waving a Socialist Worker sign. On the other hand, we're never going to accomplish anything if we have that attitude!
Indeed, how many of us are lifelong libertarians? I used to, as I seem to recall was the case with you, Ego, be a Neocon, and I actually believed that the fascist corporatism I was spouting was capitalism. If that is the main thing that is represented as capitalism, is it any wonder that some turn to what is often put out as the only alternative, egalitarian socialism?
Richard A Garner: Brainpolice: I deny that there are no unchosen positive obligations, and I find it counterintuitive to say there are none. Are you really saying that if your mother was sick and couldn't tend for herself, it would not be immoral for you to refuse to help her? Yes. In my understanding, libertarianism is incompatible with unchosen positive obligations.
Brainpolice: I deny that there are no unchosen positive obligations, and I find it counterintuitive to say there are none. Are you really saying that if your mother was sick and couldn't tend for herself, it would not be immoral for you to refuse to help her?
I deny that there are no unchosen positive obligations, and I find it counterintuitive to say there are none. Are you really saying that if your mother was sick and couldn't tend for herself, it would not be immoral for you to refuse to help her?
Yes. In my understanding, libertarianism is incompatible with unchosen positive obligations.
In a true libertarian world, there is a distinction between legality and morality. Some believe that a libertarian legal system seeks to bring law and morality into sync, but that is not case. Its statists that are always trying to improve the legal system by regulating morality, from prohibitions to welfare. Libertarian legal system is unique because it acknowledges a difference between law and morality. The law exists only to determine and enforce rights of ownership. What people should, or should not, do with those rights is not addressed by the law.
Some might consider immoral to give away your child, or refuse to care for a parent, but it certainly is not illegal.
When a person breaks the law, infringes upon another person's property, proportional violence is justified. However, if a person's behavior is only immorally, you are limited to passive punishment. For example, you could refuse to rent to them.
Peace
Ego: Like JC is saying, under your value system you are guilty for funding a government which steals and murders. Sure, if you don't fund them, they'll kill you or lock you in a cage for the rest of your life, but according to you, that doesn't matter. According to you, even if someone is under severe torture (or the threat thereof), they should be blamed for everything he or she does. By ever doing any business with any taxpayer, you are funding the government. It's cruel to blame a victim for the situation an aggressor places them into, and that's exactly what you've been doing this entire thread.
Like JC is saying, under your value system you are guilty for funding a government which steals and murders.
Sure, if you don't fund them, they'll kill you or lock you in a cage for the rest of your life, but according to you, that doesn't matter. According to you, even if someone is under severe torture (or the threat thereof), they should be blamed for everything he or she does. By ever doing any business with any taxpayer, you are funding the government.
It's cruel to blame a victim for the situation an aggressor places them into, and that's exactly what you've been doing this entire thread.
Wrong.
A mugger says, "Give me your waller" and you oblige, are you responsible for how he spends the money?
The government says, "Give me your money or I'll hurt you", so people give the money. The Government does not "Kill your neighbor or I'll hurt you".
If you had used conscription, your analogy would have been accurate. And, actually, I don't forgive drafted murders as easily as you probably do. Of course, they rarelly see themselves as responsible for their own actions. They blame the murder they commit on others and its only because of this that war is possible.
People excusing inexcusable behavior is what makes this world lousy, and you're part of the problem.
Ego: Good question. To be honest, I really wouldn't mind if we went to an anti-war rally and jailed every single person waving a Socialist Worker sign. On the other hand, we're never going to accomplish anything if we have that attitude!
So the people who are against the state murdering people should be jailed?
I say we shoot anyone who advocates using (state) violence against non-violence protesters. Sorry, ego, nothing personal.
And again, statism is only possible because people do not take responsibility for their own actions. If I ask you to kill someone, am I criminal? No, I haven't infringed on anyone's ownership. People who advocate more government are not criminals, it is anyone who performs state violence that is a criminal. Ask any police officer, they don't feel guilty about what they do, because they are just "enforcing the laws".
JonBostwick: Ego: Like JC is saying, under your value system you are guilty for funding a government which steals and murders. Sure, if you don't fund them, they'll kill you or lock you in a cage for the rest of your life, but according to you, that doesn't matter. According to you, even if someone is under severe torture (or the threat thereof), they should be blamed for everything he or she does. By ever doing any business with any taxpayer, you are funding the government. It's cruel to blame a victim for the situation an aggressor places them into, and that's exactly what you've been doing this entire thread. Wrong. A mugger says, "Give me your waller" and you oblige, are you responsible for how he spends the money? The government says, "Give me your money or I'll hurt you", so people give the money. The Government does not "Kill your neighbor or I'll hurt you". If you had used conscription, your analogy would have been accurate. And, actually, I don't forgive drafted murders as easily as you probably do. Of course, they rarelly see themselves as responsible for their own actions. They blame the murder they commit on others and its only because of this that war is possible. People excusing inexcusable behavior is what makes this world lousy, and you're part of the problem.
If that mugger was Uncle Sam, and you and knew full well that tax money went to the government, and you knew full well what kind of things the government would spend your money on, then the taxpayers are liable according to Mr. Forde's moral views.
I hate to pull the Nazi card on a fellow libertarian, but think about this:
Many of the Jews in the concentration camps were coerced into slave labor. They knew that everything they were making and doing contributed towards the (clearly evil) Nazi regime. Do you want to hold the Jews responsible?
Or, like me, do you want to blame the real aggressor (the Nazi regime)?
edit: the plural of "Nazi" won't show up in my post...
JonBostwick: Ego: Good question. To be honest, I really wouldn't mind if we went to an anti-war rally and jailed every single person waving a Socialist Worker sign. On the other hand, we're never going to accomplish anything if we have that attitude! So the people who are against the state murdering people should be jailed? I say we shoot anyone who advocates using (state) violence against non-violence protesters. Sorry, ego, nothing personal.
No, we don't round up everyone there, just the socialists holding the Socialist Worker signs!
Ego:If that mugger was Uncle Sam, and you and knew full well that tax money went to the government, and you knew full well what kind of things the government would spend your money on, then the taxpayers are liable according to Mr. Forde's moral views.
Thats not an accurate assessment.
Forde said that people are responsible for their actions. If I sell the you some fertilizer and you use it make a bomb, I am not the bomber. You are.
Even if I know you are going to make the bomb, it is you who killed people. You, as the murder, can not blame your actions on me. Nor can anyone else.
Gun manufactures know that some of the guns they sell will be used for murder, but they are not murders. They bear no responsibility.
Ego:Many of the Jews in the concentration camps were coerced into slave labor. They knew that everything they were making and doing contributed towards the (clearly evil) Nazi regime. Do you want to hold the Jews responsible?
No. Nor do I want to hold gun manufactures responsible for gun violence. My position is that a person is responsible for his own actions, so its impossible for me to blame Hitler's bombing of Russia on Jews.
It is your position that defends transferring moral responsibility. You blame the Jews for making bombs, then "forgive" them because of circumstance.
But since all the jews are guilty of is manufacturing bombs, and since the manufucture of bombs is not a sin, I have no need to forgive them.
Ego: JonBostwick: Ego: Good question. To be honest, I really wouldn't mind if we went to an anti-war rally and jailed every single person waving a Socialist Worker sign. On the other hand, we're never going to accomplish anything if we have that attitude! So the people who are against the state murdering people should be jailed? I say we shoot anyone who advocates using (state) violence against non-violence protesters. Sorry, ego, nothing personal. No, we don't round up everyone there, just the socialists holding the Socialist Worker signs!
You missed the point.
Advocating is not a crime. It doesn't matter if you advocate good hygene or nuclear war. Talking is peaceful. It is only the people who actually commit nuclear war that are criminal. Socialists aren't criminals, government agents are.
(You're transferring moral responsibility)
The manufacture of bombs for what you know to be an evil regime IS a sin.
JCFolsom: The manufacture of bombs for what you know to be an evil regime IS a sin.
Then manufacturing guns is a sin.
The act of making a bomb is the same regardless of who is going to buy it. It is only if you accept transfer of guilt that making a bomb for is any different than making a bomb for....wait, who other than evil regimes own bombs?
If you do so to sell it to the government, yes. If you sell to the populace, no, unless, as the government does, they announce to you beforehand that they will use them to aggress against others, and you sell it to them anyway.
Jon, if I hire a hitman, am I not guilty?
Ego: Jon, if I hire a hitman, am I not guilty?
Only if the hitman actually follows through. But that is not analogous to the scenario at hand.
Jews did not cause Hitler to bomb people, they merely enabled him. Completely different.
JCFolsom: unless . . . they announce to you beforehand that they will use them to aggress against others, and you sell it to them anyway.
unless . . . they announce to you beforehand that they will use them to aggress against others, and you sell it to them anyway.
Thats silly.
Intent is not neccessary for legal responsibility. If I accidently break your window, I am just as legally responsible as if I deliberately broke it.
You can't say something is criminal only if its done on purpose. Either the action of selling the gun is illegal or it is not.
Jon, just so I know where you are coming from, do you believe that people should be held responsible for their actions while being brutally tortured?
Ego: Jon, just so I know where you are coming from, do you believe that people should be held responsible for their actions while being brutally tortured?
Thats crossed my mind, I don't know.
If a person was some how drugged and not coherent, I wouldn't blame them. This is why a person drugged can be raped, even if they give consent at the time.
Though that begs the question, what happens if the raped person willing intoxicated herself. Certainly a person is liable if she willing intoxicates herself and then commits a murder.
The question of torture depends on the mental capacities of the person during the torture.
If she willingly intoxicated herself and then commits a murder, she is liable. Assuming she wasn't coerced or tricked into getting intoxicated, she knowingly participated in an activity which lowers her ability to reason act rationally.
Let's say that woman was mentally fit. She was kidnapped and brutally tortured for months into commiting a crime (a crime which she knew all along to be wrong). Do you really think that it's the right thing to do to punish her after the ordeal? Mr. Forde certainly seems to think so.
In my mind, any rational person would punish the real coercer: the man who kidnapped her and tortured her into commiting his crime.
JonBostwick:Thats silly. Intent is not neccessary for legal responsibility. If I accidently break your window, I am just as legally responsible as if I deliberately broke it. You can't say something is criminal only if its done on purpose. Either the action of selling the gun is illegal or it is not.
Silly? I could as well sell a brick to someone and they might kill someone with it. Heck, most things have the potential to be weapons. What's silly is if you're really saying that I incur no responsibility in selling a gun to someone who tells me he's going to use it to kill his wife than for selling to someone who doesn't say so. In the one case, I willingly provide a tool that I know, based on the man's stated intent, he will use for murder. In the other, I am not a willing accomplice to murder.
Now, for the Jews manufacturing in the camps, the difference was only in the sorts of incentives involved. In the gun shop, you gained money if you did as you were asked, in the camps you temporarily avoided gruesome penalty if you did as you were asked. In the one case, you could go without the money, in the other, you could suffer the penalty. By agreeing to either, you knowingly and by your free will aid and abet murder, and you deserve all the penalties that incurs... unless you accept duress, the threat of the terrible penalty, as an excuse from such condemnation.
JCFolsom:. What's silly is if you're really saying that I incur no responsibility in selling a gun to someone who tells me he's going to use it to kill his wife than for selling to someone who doesn't say so.
What if you sell it to the man, but he ends up not killing his wife. Are you still guilty of assisting a murder because you thought he was going to commit murder?
How can a person be liable for something that never happened?
Like I said, silly.
Ego:In my mind, any rational person would punish the real coercer: the man who kidnapped her and tortured her into commiting his crime.
No one said you could not punish both.(Though I don't like the word punish, the goal of justice is not punishment but restoration)
A person doing something while in an abnormal state of mind is not the same as a person doing something because their life is threatened. If a person commits murder because of a threat, it is not because of a breakdown in reason. In fact, since they are acting out of self-preservation it shows they are acting rationally. Rand would be proud.
Like I said, I'm not yet convinced that a tortured person is not rational.
Sorry, didnt realize this was addressing the socialists and not the jews.
You are responsible for the actions of your agents, paid or unpaid. But I do not believe the State is the agent of the electorate.
The State ultimately is only able to exist because it is supported by the population. But the State does not serve the electorate's interests, it serves its own.
Of course, if we were to hold people guilty for their political beliefs practically the entire Republican party would be in jail long before any socialists because murder(genocide, really) is a more serious crime than theft.
JonBostwick:What if you sell it to the man, but he ends up not killing his wife. Are you still guilty of assisting a murder because you thought he was going to commit murder? How can a person be liable for something that never happened? Like I said, silly.
There's this funny concept known in the legal system as conspiracy. Look it up sometime. I'm sure you could learn all sorts of things if you tried.
For my part, I do think of justice as punishment, so I don't have a problem bringing penalties upon people who were too inept to actually harm someone on the first try.
JonBostwick:I do not believe the State is the agent of the electorate.
No, but by paying taxes, we become agents of the state. We help operate the economic engine that keeps it moving. Further, we are agents of the state by our informed free will.
JCFolsom: There's this funny concept known in the legal system as conspiracy. Look it up sometime. I'm sure you could learn all sorts of things if you tried. For my part, I do think of justice as punishment, so I don't have a problem bringing penalties upon people who were too inept to actually harm someone on the first try.
But the gun seller wasn't trying to hurt anyone. You accused him of not attempting to prevent a non-existent murder.
There are lots of funny legal concepts. Like eminent domain, conscription, taxation, prohibition, regulations.
I know lots about them, I just happen to disagree with pretty much all of them.
The state charges people with lots of non-crimes, the problem is: they aren't crimes.
JCFolsom: JonBostwick:I do not believe the State is the agent of the electorate. No, but by paying taxes, we become agents of the state. We help operate the economic engine that keeps it moving. Further, we are agents of the state by our informed free will.
Thats not the proper use of the word. Agents act on behalf of someone. The customers of a business are not its "agents."
JonBostwick: You can't say something is criminal only if its done on purpose.
You can't say something is criminal only if its done on purpose.
Of course you can, for some definition of "on purpose"; look up "mens rea".
Paul: JonBostwick: You can't say something is criminal only if its done on purpose. Of course you can, for some definition of "on purpose"; look up "mens rea".
So, if i accidently burn down your house, or hit your car, I owe you nothing? What sort of injuries can I inflict on accident where I am not liable?
You are using the statist definition of crime, where crime means doing something the state doesn't want you to do. I'm using the libertarian definition where crime means infringing upon someone's property.
I'm falling asleep as I type this, so it may not make any sense. I'll try to flesh it out tomorrow (assuming I still agree with it!).
If someone threatens me with death unless I kill someone else, I am being forced (yes, coerced) into choosing which life is more valuable. It isn't a choice that I want to make, but it's a choice that I'm being forced to make. To me, it seems rational to choose your own life as being more valuable. Choosing the other person's life -- seemingly for the greater good of moral society -- seems irrational. Of course, the other person doesn't deserve to die! The blame for his/her death lies in the person that forced me into that decision.
As to crimes, there are victimizing and victimless crimes. A victimizing crime involves harming another person's self or property, plain and simple, regardless of intent. Intent should play a part in the severity of the punishment. Self-defense results in no punishment, even though there was a victim. Planned murder should carry the heaviest sentence.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Ego: If someone threatens me with death unless I kill someone else, I am being forced (yes, coerced) into choosing which life is more valuable. It isn't a choice that I want to make, but it's a choice that I'm being forced to make. To me, it seems rational to choose your own life as being more valuable. Choosing the other person's life -- seemingly for the greater good of moral society -- seems irrational. Of course, the other person doesn't deserve to die! The blame for his/her death lies in the person that forced me into that decision.
Um, if someone threatened me with death unless I kill someone else, I would only kill the other person if I knew they deserved it.
Ego: I'm falling asleep as I type this, so it may not make any sense. I'll try to flesh it out tomorrow (assuming I still agree with it!). If someone threatens me with death unless I kill someone else, I am being forced (yes, coerced) into choosing which life is more valuable. It isn't a choice that I want to make, but it's a choice that I'm being forced to make. To me, it seems rational to choose your own life as being more valuable. Choosing the other person's life -- seemingly for the greater good of moral society -- seems irrational. Of course, the other person doesn't deserve to die! The blame for his/her death lies in the person that forced me into that decision.
Like I said at the outset, that is not a libertarian argument. It is anti-libertarian to argue that my needs allow me to violate the Non-Aggression Principle.
You might think that behaving morally is irrational, but makes you an objectivist and not a libertarian.
Spideynw: As to crimes, there are victimizing and victimless crimes. A victimizing crime involves harming another person's self or property, plain and simple, regardless of intent. Intent should play a part in the severity of the punishment.
As to crimes, there are victimizing and victimless crimes. A victimizing crime involves harming another person's self or property, plain and simple, regardless of intent. Intent should play a part in the severity of the punishment.
Punishment must be proportional. That doesn't allow for giving increased sentences to people we dislike the most. You are liable for your crime, not your mindset.
What's not libertarian is punishing a victim for actions under coercion; that would make citizens of a state aggressors rather than victims.
When you drive on government roads, accept Social Security, pay taxes, use the court system, use the Internet, call emergency services, or attend a government university, you are acting as an aggressor. You have to be consistent!
Ego: When you drive on government roads, accept Social Security, pay taxes, use the court system, use the Internet, call emergency services, or attend a government university, you are acting as an aggressor. You have to be consistent!
You continuously mischaracterize my position.
My position means that only the person who actually collects the taxes to build the road is an aggressor. Using the road is a morally neutral action. Your position means that the person who collects the taxes can transfer their guilt to whoever wants the road to be built.
So, its you who makes the subjects the aggressors!
Ego:What's not libertarian is punishing a victim for actions under coercion
Thats not an accurate definition of libertarian. Libertarian is defined by the non-aggression principle. Any subversion of that principle is a subversion of libertarianism.
JonBostwick: Ego: When you drive on government roads, accept Social Security, pay taxes, use the court system, use the Internet, call emergency services, or attend a government university, you are acting as an aggressor. You have to be consistent! You continuously mischaracterize my position. My position means that only the person who actually collects the taxes to build the road is an aggressor. Using the road is a morally neutral action. Your position means that the person who collects the taxes can transfer their guilt to whoever wants the road to be built. So, its you who makes the subjects the aggressors! Ego:What's not libertarian is punishing a victim for actions under coercion Thats not an accurate definition of libertarian. Libertarian is defined by the non-aggression principle. Any subversion of that principle is a subversion of libertarianism.
Wait a second... Would it not have been wrong to give funding and weaponry to the Nazi regime?
Would it not be wrong to accept and use goods and servives that you know were stolen from someone else?
Ego: Wait a second... Would it not have been wrong to give funding and weaponry to the Nazi regime? Would it not be wrong to accept and use goods and servives that you know were stolen from someone else?
How does either of that follow from my post?
It is not illegal to sell guns, or food, to anyone; not even those ever-hateable Nazi. "Giving" might be different, but I can't think of any reason why.
Its not illegal to buy something stolen, it is illegal to try to keep it if the legitimate owner demands it back. I've already explained why this is true. The act of buying itself is not immoral, but denying a person the rights of ownership of their property is.
If you want to say that people shouldn't sell guns to nazi, or shouldn't buy stolen goods, thats fine. But neither is a violation of the NAP, so is not a crime.
You are interpreting the NAP in a peculiar way (punishing victims and ignoring deliberate enablers). Are you really saying that I am completely innocent if I give weaponry, money, and intel to an evil state killing and torturing millions of people (like the Nazi regime)? Are the only guilty people (in your mind) the drafted soldiers on the ground?
Ego: Are you really saying that I am completely innocent if I give weaponry, money, and intel to an evil state killing and torturing millions of people (like, say, the Nazi regime)?
Are you really saying that I am completely innocent if I give weaponry, money, and intel to an evil state killing and torturing millions of people (like, say, the Nazi regime)?
Ego: What's not libertarian is punishing a victim for actions under coercion; that would make citizens of a state aggressors rather than victims. When you drive on government roads, accept Social Security, pay taxes, use the court system, use the Internet, call emergency services, or attend a government university, you are acting as an aggressor.
When you drive on government roads, accept Social Security, pay taxes, use the court system, use the Internet, call emergency services, or attend a government university, you are acting as an aggressor.
Ego: You have to be consistent!
You have to be consistent!
Like I said, you're the one that accuses tax payers of being aggressors.