Ego:You are interpreting the NAP in a peculiar way (punishing victims and ignoring deliberate enablers)
I'm interpreting it literally. You are interpreting it selectively.
Enabling is not the same thing as causing. Enabling a crime is not a crime, otherwise the builder of a gun would be liable for whatever actions the gun was ever used for.
Peace
JonBostwick: 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)? 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. Ego: You have to be consistent! Like I said, you're the one that accuses tax payers of being aggressors.
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.
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.
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.
No, I don't think taxpayers are aggressors. They are forced at gunpoint to give money to an evil organization. I've been the one saying all along that you shouldn't blame someone in that situation!
In your moral system, however, the fact that someone is threatened, tortured, forced, etc. doesn't matter. Does that clarify my last post?
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: No, I don't think taxpayers are aggressors. They are forced at gunpoint to give money to an evil organization.
No, I don't think taxpayers are aggressors. They are forced at gunpoint to give money to an evil organization.
But most taxpayers pay their taxes willing. They believe in the government and look down on people who don't pay taxes.
Your logic demands that anyone who payes their taxes because they want to, and not because they are afraid of the government, be treated as an aggressor.
I say that all tax payers are guiltless, regardless of mindset.
JonBostwick: Ego:You are interpreting the NAP in a peculiar way (punishing victims and ignoring deliberate enablers) I'm interpreting it literally. You are interpreting it selectively. Enabling is not the same thing as causing. Enabling a crime is not a crime, otherwise the builder of a gun would be liable for whatever actions the gun was ever used for.
Interpreting the NAP literally is silly! Think about this: if I give someone some poisoned food and then walk away, I'm not forcing them to do anything and I'm not being aggressive. Under your literal interpretation, I didn't do anything wrong.
So, while you wouldn't punish me, and you wouldn't punish individuals who voluntarily gave money, weapons, and intel to the Nazi regime (knowing full well who the were), you would punish someone who was coerced into committing a crime? Why is your system is a good system that you expect anyone to subscribe to?
edit: Yep, without abusing markup, you can't say the plural of "nazi".
edit2: Can't type at all.
Ego: Interpreting the NAP literally is silly! Think about this: if I give someone some poisoned food and then walk away, I'm not forcing them to do anything and I'm not being aggressive. Under your literal interpretation, I didn't do anything wrong.
You aren't using an accurate definition of aggression then. It is not limited to personal violence. It includes all forms of property damage, theft, fraud, and coercion.
You caused personal harm and violated the NAP.
But I'm not causing personal harm, under you previous logic. I didn't force him to eat it.
Ego: But I'm not causing personal harm, under you previous logic. I didn't force him to eat it.
Thats like saying that committing fraud is not a crime, because I didn't force you to believe my lies.
I agree, but I don't see how that is consistent with your literal interpretation of the NAP.
If your system doesn't punish individuals who knowingly and voluntarily give money, weaponry, and intel to the Nazi war machine, but does punish individuals who are threatened/tortured into committing a crime, I really don't see why anyone else would want to subscribe to it.
Ego: I really don't see why anyone else would want to subscribe to it.
I really don't see why anyone else would want to subscribe to it.
Because they don't believe tax payers are aggressors.
JonBostwick: Ego: No, I don't think taxpayers are aggressors. They are forced at gunpoint to give money to an evil organization. But most taxpayers pay their taxes willing. They believe in the government and look down on people who don't pay taxes. Your logic demands that anyone who payes their taxes because they want to, and not because they are afraid of the government, be treated as an aggressor. I say that all tax payers are guiltless, regardless of mindset.
Ego
For the sake of making progess and coming to some kind of agreement, I invite this as a strategy: How about you tell Jon and I what you think we should believe and why, and then we can tell you what we think you should believe and why.
I'm becoming more and more confused as to what exactly your views are, Jon. In the following scenarios, tell me if Person1 would be punished under your moral system:
edit: can't type
Stephen Forde, people should not be held responsible for their actions if those actions were taken under coercion. The coercer should be held responsible.
Ego:Stephen Forde, people should not be held responsible for their actions if those actions were taken under coercion. The coercer should be held responsible.
How much coercion is necessary to let someone off the hook? Threatening to confiscate a dollar, demolish their house, confiscation of life savings, a slap in the face, amputation of a limb, or execution. At what point does it become ok, and why? It is more the why that I'm interested in. Also, why should people not be held responsible for their actions if those actions were taken under coercion? What is the argument and line of reasoning leading to this conclusion? This is where the focus of our debate should be. By focusing here we will probably come to some agreement. If we just keep repeating our positions, we won't get anywhere. And its also more interesting. That's what I think anyway.
I do not see how coercion can justify further coercion. You misunderstood my first statement about free will in which they still have free will, even under threat of death. Why you may ask? Their actions do not depend on a physical causal agents. In the case you are being held under threat of death to kill yourself, assuming there only exists two outcomes: 1. You kill another, to save yourself or 2. You do not kill the other, and you are then killed. Outcome 2 would be the only moral outcome of this situation since Outcome 1 initiates further aggression against an outside party.
Why bring in the bystander, Smith, into this problem? If Jones forces you to kill him, you can refuse at the expense of your own life. The _ultimate causal agent_ of the aggression of the bystander Smith whom your forced to kill is found within you because you have free will. Physical events aren't a definitive causal agent in mental actions where the aggression against Smith started. They may _influence_ your actions, but they do not _determine_ them.
Ego:I'm becoming more and more confused as to what exactly your views are, Jon.
Then maybe its time to abandon your strategy of imagining new scenarios to try to trick me into agreeing with you.
I have already concretely defined my beliefs.
Ego: In the following scenarios, tell me if Person1 would be punished under your moral system: Person1 hates Person2, so he pulls out a gun and shoots him. Person3 hates Person2, so Person3 holds a chainsaw to Person1's genitals and coerces him into shooting Person2. Person1 voluntarily gives weaponry and funding to a giant murderous gang. This gang is actively killing and torturing millions of innocent people. Person 3 is a member of said gang, and threatens to kill Person1 if Person1 doesn't give the gang weaponry and funding.
In the following scenarios, tell me if Person1 would be punished under your moral system:
Oh well....
Stephen Forde: Ego:Stephen Forde, people should not be held responsible for their actions if those actions were taken under coercion. The coercer should be held responsible. How much coercion is necessary to let someone off the hook? Threatening to confiscate a dollar, demolish their house, confiscation of life savings, a slap in the face, amputation of a limb, or execution. At what point does it become ok, and why? It is more the why that I'm interested in. Also, why should people not be held responsible for their actions if those actions were taken under coercion? What is the argument and line of reasoning leading to this conclusion? This is where the focus of our debate should be. By focusing here we will probably come to some agreement. If we just keep repeating our positions, we won't get anywhere. And its also more interesting. That's what I think anyway.
Instead of asking "why not punish them?", I'll ask you, "why punish them?".
The purpose of punishment is to prevent and rectify evil and reckless choices. That's why no one wants to punish freak accidents.
If a man holds a chainsaw to a married woman's neck and says, "you will have sex with me and you will act like you're enjoying it", her compliance doesn't mean that she is unfaithful to her husband! It serves no purpose to stigmatize her as such. Using your logic in a legal system is even worse; not only is it unfair, but it grants immunity to aggresors who take hostages and employ human shields (and thus incourages those actions).
can't type
double post
JonBostwick: Ego:I'm becoming more and more confused as to what exactly your views are, Jon. Then maybe its time to abandon your strategy of imagining new scenarios to try to trick me into agreeing with you. I have already concretely defined my beliefs. Ego: In the following scenarios, tell me if Person1 would be punished under your moral system: Person1 hates Person2, so he pulls out a gun and shoots him. Person3 hates Person2, so Person3 holds a chainsaw to Person1's genitals and coerces him into shooting Person2. Person1 voluntarily gives weaponry and funding to a giant murderous gang. This gang is actively killing and torturing millions of innocent people. Person 3 is a member of said gang, and threatens to kill Person1 if Person1 doesn't give the gang weaponry and funding. Oh well....
Well, do you think you could answer them? I'm not trying to trick you into anything, I'm trying to get you to see your inconsistencies.
equack: I do not see how coercion can justify further coercion.
I don't think so either.
equack:You misunderstood my first statement about free will in which they still have free will, even under threat of death.
I don't see what I misunderstood. I was just asking Ego for an elaboration of his position because I'm trying to understand the principles he is applying to the hypothetical situations.
Ego:Instead of asking "why not punish them?", I'll ask you, "why punish them?".
I don't think that the question is one of whether or not the coerced party should be punished. I think its a matter of who and whether or not the victim has the right to punish.
Ego:The purpose of punishment is to prevent and rectify evil and reckless choices.
This raises the following questions. Who may decide to punish or not? What is the standard by which "evil and reckless" are determined?What punishment is suitable for the evil and reckless choice?
Ego: If a man holds a chainsaw to a married woman's neck and says, "you will have sex with me and you will act like you're enjoying it", her compliance doesn't mean that she is unfaithful to her husband!
If a person is coerced into sex that, by definition, is not voluntary and thus rape.
You keep drawing new scenarios, but they are never analogous to the one previous! Having sex is not a crime, so to consent to sex while under coercion is not criminal. Killing someone is a crime, so to consent to murder while under coercion is a crime.
Ego: Using your logic in a legal system is even worse; not only is it unfair, but it grants immunity to aggresors
No one has ever said that the coercers are immune from retaliation. Why do you keep insisting that?
If you coerce someone into having sex, you are a rapist. If you coerce someone into murdering, you are a murder.
Coercing someone into carrying out a murder is the same crime as hiring someone to carry out a murder*. Committing a murder while under coercion is the same crime as being a murderer for hire.
*Aside from the additional crime of coercion
JonBostwick: 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. 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.
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.
Intent has nothing to do with giving increased sentences to people we dislike the most.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Jon, my point is as following: why would you not stigmatize a women who was forced by a chainsaw-to-the-neck into sex, but you would punish someone who was forced at chainsaw-point into killone someone else? I realize that sex isn't a crime, but that's not the point. This is all about who gets the blame for actions. Punish the real coercer.
In your moral system, you have stated that you want to punish Person1 in scenarios 1 and 2. However, what about 3 and 4?
There is a distinction between law and moral rules and in this case although you have a moral obligation you dont have a legal obligation.
Meaning if you dont help your dying mother, what you did will be regarded as immoral by the society and you will pay by the way of isolation. But since you dont have a legal obligation, or commited a crime by not helping, no one in the society may make you pay by using force against you or your property.
Ego:I realize that sex isn't a crime, but that's not the point
Yes it is.
Being coerced into sex is a single crime: the coercion. One person is punished. Being coerced into murder is a double crime: the coercion and the murder. Two people get punished.
If 3 was Yes then Osama Bin Laden would have been justified in killing Americans on 9/11.
If you wouldn't 3 ok under your moral system, why would you prosecute someone who hires a hitman?
Ego: If you wouldn't 3 ok under your moral system, why would you prosecute someone who hires a hitman?
Because that is causing a murder, which is different from enabling a murder, remember? Gun manufactures enable murder, but that is not enough to prove they cause any murders.
Now If someone says, "Im going to go kill Person" and I say, "Heres a gun, go do it." You could argue that I have sold him the gun in exchange for him killing Person 1, which would probably make me liable.
I completely disagree. Hiring a hitman and providing funding and weaponry to a murderous gang are no different.
How about these two scenarios:
You own slaves. I give you $5. Am I guilty of your crimes?
Ego: a woman who was coerced with a chainsaw at her genitals
You're a disturbing fellow.
Ego: Person1 voluntarily gives weaponry and funding to a giant murderous gang. This. [You already said your personal moral system has no problem with this, you'd rather punish a woman who was coerced with a chainsaw at her genitals into commiting a crime.] Person1 voluntarily gives weaponry and funding, and a note saying, "keep up the good work" to a giant muderous gang. This gang is actively killing and torturing millions of innocent people.
Suppose that I give one gun to this giant gang that "is actively killing and torturing millions of innocent people." What is my obligation to the victims of this gang? What is my proportional liability?
No, giving something to a guilty person does not necessarily mean you're committing a crime. That doesn't mean that providing funding and weaponry to the Nazi regime is acceptable, and it doesn't mean that volunteering a cigarette lighter to a man who is beating a woman drenched in gasoline and tied to a tree is acceptable; you have to use common sense.
As for my disturbing imagery, I try to make arguments as emotionally appealing as possible...
Could you answer the two questions?
Ego:As for my disturbing imagery, I try to make arguments as emotionally appealing as possible...
To make up for intellectual appeal?
No, for both.
I'm just trying to point out that your personal moral system punishes victims and lets the "big guys" behind coercive operations off the hook just because they didn't get their hands dirty.
Would you punish the man who volunteered the lighter?
What the difference between number 2 and hiring a hitman? Couldn't hiring a hitman be done in a similar fashion?
Ego:lets the "big guys" behind coercive operations off the hook just because they didn't get their hands dirty.
How many times do I have to correct you about that?
Ego:I'm just trying to point out that your personal moral system punishes victims
Someone who commits murder in order to avoid becoming a victim is not a victim. He is a murder.
JonBostwick: How many times do I have to correct you about that?
And what the difference between number 2 and hiring a hitman? Couldn't hiring a hitman be done in a similar fashion?
Ego: JonBostwick: How many times do I have to correct you about that?Once would be enough...did I miss it?
How about three times on that page alone.
JonBostwick: Coercing someone into carrying out a murder is the same crime as hiring someone to carry out a murder*. Committing a murder while under coercion is the same crime as being a murderer for hire. *Aside from the additional crime of coercion.
*Aside from the additional crime of coercion.
JonBostwick: Being coerced into sex is a single crime: the coercion. One person is punished. Being coerced into murder is a double crime: the coercion and the murder. Two people get punished.
JonBostwick: No one has ever said that the coercers are immune from retaliation. Why do you keep insisting that?
Ego: Someone who commits murder in order to avoid becoming a victim is not a victim. He is a murder.Nope. Blaming someone for their actions under torture is simply evil. Blame the real aggressor: the torturer!
You've changed the scenario. You said coercion.
Ego:And what the difference between number 2 and hiring a hitman? Couldn't hiring a hitman be done in a similar fashion?
Prove it.
First of all, I was talking about the following (both of which you said were ok under your personal moral system, unless you've edited):
I'm not sure how you want me to prove the hitman thing... I'm never going to hire a hitman!
Would you punish people for freak accidents?
Ego:I'm not sure how you want me to prove the hitman thing... I'm never going to hire a hitman!
I meant prove they are the same thing through argument.
Ego:Would you punish people for freak accidents?
Duh! If you cause a car accident, you are responsible.
How about you? Would you not make the driver pay for the damages he caused?
You see the law as a way to hurt people you don't like. I see the law as a way to compensate for damages.
Lets take this back to libertarianism 101.
Ego: The purpose of punishment is to prevent and rectify evil and reckless choices. That's why no one wants to punish freak accidents.
The law does not exist to cause people to not commit crimes; thats a utopian idea. The law exists because people do commit crimes and it allows for the damage to be undone, as best is possible.
So if the law exists to undo damage, then anyone who does damage is answerable to the law. And how much damage you caused determines how much you are liable for. If I steal a candy bar its rightful owner can not shoot me in retaliation. This is because my crime does not mean I lose self ownership, it only reduces my ownership by the amount that I owe to the candy's owner. And if my person is all that I possess, I owe him labor.
Now if by freak accident I burn my neighbors house down I have deprived my neighbor of his property; no differently than if I had stole it. Because of that I have lost ownership of an amount equal to what I owe him. This is the most fair solution. It would be very unfair to force my neighbor to bear the costs of my actions.
It would be moral for me to volunteer the payment to my neighbor, but it would be legal for my neighbor to take my house from me as payment.
JonBostwick: Ego:I'm not sure how you want me to prove the hitman thing... I'm never going to hire a hitman! I meant prove they are the same thing through argument.
There is a known hitman in town. I slip him a briefcase with money and a note saying, "I really don't like Bob McName".
Ego:Would you punish people for freak accidents? Duh! If you cause a car accident, you are responsible. How about you? Would you not make the driver pay for the damages he caused? You see the law as a way to hurt people you don't like. I see the law as a way to compensate for damages.
I wouldn't say that's the difference, but we've certainly found it. Here we go:
In all of my examples in which someone coerces (like, for example, a man holding a running chainsaw next to a woman's genitals) someone else into committing a crime, I still want all damages to be compensated. I, however, want the evil party, the coercer, to be the one to do it.
Freak accidents should not be punished. Car wrecks usually aren't freak accidents; they are usually the result of a negligent choice from one or both parties. In cases where something truly freakish occurred (not the result of a negligent or malicious choice), then it doesn't make sense to punish either person. Things happen, and no one made a malicious and negligent choice. In those cases, whoever wants to pay it for should pay for it.
edit: hundreds of thousands of typos