Ego: 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".
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.
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".
Not equivalent. Your gang was already killing people, your hit man was not going to kill Bob McName before you paid him.
Ego: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 for should pay for it.
Thats nonsense. Either the person who was damaged pays for it or the person who caused the damage pays for it. Its an easy choice.
What the heck do you define as freak then? Spontaneous combustion? But even then the combuster's conscious choices determined where he combusted.
Peace
JonBostwick: Ego: 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". Not equivalent. Your gang was already killing people, your hit man was not going to kill Bob McName before you paid him.
...but the gang would not have killed x number of people without the funding and weaponry.
Ego: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 for should pay for it. Thats nonsense. Either the person who was damaged pays for it or the person who caused the damage pays for it. Its an easy choice.
In a true freak accident, it will probably be the owner of whatever was damaged who ends up paying.
What the heck do you define as freak then? Spontaneous combustion? Spontaneous combustion?
Let's see here... you are in a store with an opaque door that swings outward. The very moment you open the door, a man outside is reaching for the doorknob. The door hits his watch and it breaks. Neither of you did anything stupid, mean, or wrong, it was just a freak accident..
edit: clarity
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: What the heck do you define as freak then? Spontaneous combustion? Spontaneous combustion? Let's see here... you are in a store with an opaque door. The very moment you open the door, a man outside is reaching for the doorknob. The door hits his watch and it breaks. Neither of you did anything stupid, mean, or wrong, it was just a freak accident..
Let's see here... you are in a store with an opaque door. The very moment you open the door, a man outside is reaching for the doorknob. The door hits his watch and it breaks. Neither of you did anything stupid, mean, or wrong, it was just a freak accident..
Neither person is liable and not because it was a "freak accident", its because neither caused it. It was the result of a joint action so neither is less responsible than the other.
Ego:...but the gang would not have killed x number of people without the funding and weaponry.
And the murderer would not have killed X number of people if I had not sold him the bullets.
No, neither person is "responsible", you're using Boortz's pet definition of "responsibility".
If I am outside and a bird flies from behind me and smacks me in the back of my neck, or I walk beneath a tree and a branch falls on my head, I'm not "responsible". Yes, my own choices caused me to be in that specific place at that specific time, but using the word "responsible" causes the word to lose all meaning! If I walk past a bank just as it's being robbed, and a bullet flies out building and hits me in the chest, I am not "responsible" for getting shot. Neither the bird, the branch, nor the bullet are my fault.
I agree, as I've already acknowledged. The owner of the store had no reason to assume I was going to murder anyone. 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, 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, and it doesn't mean that giving money to a hitman and hinting that you want him to kill someone is acceptable; you have to use common sense.
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."
Juan: The hitman is a moral agent, and is the one commiting the 'physical' crime.
I was wondering if anyone would call me out on that.
That people are responsible for the actions of their agents is a separate assumption, based mostly on utility. I probably should have put some effort into justifying it from a natural rights perspective. Lets try:
Juan:What the guy paying for the murder did is just to speak some words and to give money to the hitman - actions wich are not criminal.
Unless you consider buying murder an illegal act. Picking up an apple is not illegal, unless it belongs to someone else. I don't see why circumstance can not be taken into account for our hitman scenario.
I should add that the person who hires the hitman is only liable so long as the murder actually happens, as thats the only way he has actually "bought" the murder and not just solicited for it.
In that case, why is voluntarily/knowingly funding a murder different involuntarily/knowingly funding a murder? It's been established that you don't make a distinction between voluntary and involuntary acts.
Juan:Hm. Or what about this ? : We are not concerned with intent, although the person hiring the hitman intends to do damage. What makes him guilty is that the damage is caused by his actions(paying) as well as those of the hitman. So I fail at playing devil's advocate ? haha.
So you think intent does matter?
Ego: In that case, why is voluntarily knowingly funding a murder different involuntarily knowingly funding a murder?
In that case, why is voluntarily knowingly funding a murder different involuntarily knowingly funding a murder?
I said funding a murder was not a crime. I said employing a person to commit murder was.
Please start accurately quoting.
I know you said that; how is that consistent?
If voluntarily and involuntarily committing a crime is the same thing under your moral system, why is voluntarily/knowingly funding a crime different from involuntarily/knowingly funding a crime?
Ego: I know you said that; how is that consistent? If voluntarily and involuntarily committing a crime is the same thing under your moral system, why is voluntarily/knowingly funding a crime different from involuntarily/knowingly funding a crime?
I think you're right about there being an inconsistency in JonBostiwick's and my position. Yesterday I read Hoppe's and Kinsella's positions on crime and causality (http://mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae7_4_6.pdf, http://mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae7_4_7.pdf). I contradicted myself when I said that intent didn't matter. Guilt was only dependent on the initiation of a causal chain of events which ends in an aggression against an innocent party. The problem with this is that causality and intent (means and ends) are both categories of action and inseperable. Every crime is an action.
There is only one problem I have with the Hoppe-Kinsella position. I think one can only be held responsible for another's aggression if they have a (illigitimate) contract to commit the crime (at least an implicit contract).
The reason why the conscripted killer is a criminal is because he harms an innocent person. The reason why the taxpayer is not is because he is not employing government agents as aggressors. He has no contract with them agreeing to fund their aggression. He does not intend to harm the government's victims.
Stephen Forde:I think you're right about there being an inconsistency in JonBostiwick's and my position. I contradicted myself when I said that intent didn't matter.
Let me add one reservation.
Kinsella is using intent to mean the difference between unknowingly enabling and employing means to cause. He is asking if they knew they were doing something; not as Ego meant it, why they did it. His use of the word intent is in line with our view of causation.
Kinsella has also done a nice job of proving our hypothesis that employers of hit men are liable.
Stephen Forde:The reason why the conscripted killer is a criminal is because he harms an innocent person. The reason why the taxpayer is not is because he is not employing government agents as aggressors. He has no contract with them agreeing to fund their aggression. He does not intend to harm the government's victims.
Reinach's scenario (page 14) where A sends B into the forest hoping he will be struck by lighting justifies my position that voters can not be held responsible for their endorsements of state actions. As a voter has no more control over or ability to predict the state than A has over lighting. In reality many votes do intend to hurt others through the state, but they have no ability to actually cause it.
We have no greater ability to predict what our government does than we have to predict whether someone gets struck by lighting? Are you serious!? We all know about wars, social security, welfare etc. At the very least, when are forced to pay taxes, we know that we are funding an organization that collects taxes.
Ego: We have no greater ability to predict what our government does than we have to predict whether someone gets struck by lighting? Are you serious!? We all know about wars, social security, welfare etc. At the very least, when are forced to pay taxes, we know that we are funding an organization that collects taxes.
Why should dealing with criminals be considered a crime?
Well, keep in mind that I'm trying to point out the inconsistencies in your position; I'm not stating my own. Regardless, knowingly/voluntarily writing checks and sending weaponry to the Nazi regime should, without a doubt, be a crime. Why not?
How about this...
Let's say that a gang of twenty people were operating a large weapon aimed at a school of innocent children. The weapon only fired if ten of the twenty people pulled their personal trigger. One person pulling his trigger does nothing; he still relies on the others' actions. Would you prosecute any of them for murdering the children?
Ego:Well, keep in mind that I'm trying to point out the inconsistencies in your position
I think I've cleared those up mostly.
Ego:Regardless, knowingly/voluntarily writing checks and sending weaponry to the Nazi regime should, without a doubt, be a crime. Why not?
It shouldn't unless there is some implicit agreement as to what the funds or weapons are used for. If the funds are to be used to build hospitals, it's not criminal. If the person understands that the funds will be used to pay for an invasion of another country, it's criminal. If the person doesn't know, or there is no understanding between the doner and the *** regarding what the funds are to be used for, it's not. Same thing for weapons. If they are defensive weapons like Flak artillary, it's not criminal. If it's a nuclear weapon, it is criminal. If it's small arms, it depends on the understanding between the doner and the *** regarding their use.
Ego:Let's say that a gang of twenty people were operating a large weapon aimed at a school of innocent children. The weapon only fired if ten of the twenty people pulled their personal triggera. One person pulling his trigger does nothing; he still relies on the others' actions. Would you prosecute any of them for murdering the children?
I would say that the ten people all intend to kill. There is no other interpretation of their action. And they are all acting together cooperatively to commit this crime. They are all equally guilty.
What if they don't want to kill but were coerced (via chainsaw at the genitals) into doing it?
Stephen Forde: It shouldn't unless there is some implicit agreement as to what the funds or weapons are used for. If the funds are to be used to build hospitals, it's not criminal. If the person understands that the funds will be used to pay for an invasion of another country, it's criminal. If the person doesn't know, or there is no understanding between the doner and the *** regarding what the funds are to be used for, it's not. Same thing for weapons. If they are defensive weapons like Flak artillary, it's not criminal. If it's a nuclear weapon, it is criminal. If it's small arms, it depends on the understanding between the doner and the *** regarding their use.
Why should it matter what the N*zis spend your specific contibution on? Even if they did spend the money on defensive artillery, it would free up more money for them to buy more offensive artillery, build more ovens, etc.
What if you specifically gave them offensive artillery?
edit: typos
Ego: What if they don't want to kill but were coerced (via chainsaw at the genitals) into doing it?
But they do want to kill because they are coerced and it is the only way to save their own skin. Murder is murder. The coercion doesn't change that fact.
Ego:Why should it matter what the N*zis spend your specific contibution on? Even if they did spend the money on defensive artillery, it would free up more money for them to buy more offensive artillery, build more ovens, etc.
Yes. But the NS are solely responsible for this.
Ego:What if you specifically gave them offensive artillery?
Either this weapon is of a nature that it can only be used offensively or it can be used for both offense and defense. In the first case, it should be considered criminal. In the second case, it should depend on the mutual understanding between the doner and the NS of the purpose of the weapons.
How is that any different from being forced to pay money to fund an evil organization that collects taxes, fights wars, forcibly sets wages and prices, etc.? Government wouldn't be able to do that stuff if half of the country stopped paying! Really, what's different about that?
As a side question, let's say that a man pinned you down, held a spinning chainsaw next to your genitals, and coerced you into throwing a rock through a neighbor's window. Who should pay for the window, you or him?
For anyone who stumbles across this post, I believe that the coerced in these examples should not be punished!
Ego:How is that any different from being forced to pay money to fund an evil organization that collects taxes, fights wars, forcibly sets wages and prices, etc.? Government wouldn't be able to do that stuff if half of the country stopped paying! Really, what's different about that?
In both cases, the coerced party wishes to avoid harm. In the case of the murderer, he has the same intent as the extortionist, the death or injury of a third party. In the case of the taxpayer, he does not have the same intent as state agents, causing injury or death to third parties. The extortionist and murderer act in concert to achieve a goal. The taxpayer and state agent do not. The extortionist and murderer have an agreement to commit a crime. The taxpayer and state agent do not.
You keeping asking the same question. I don't know what else you could want in an answer. I think the question is settled, unless you can find a problem in the standard of judgement.
Ego:As a side question, let's say that a man pinned you down, held a spinning chainsaw next to your genitals, and coerced you into throwing a rock through a neighbor's window. Who should pay for the window, you or him?
Both owe restitution collectively (half and half if both can pay). And the window owner has a right to retribution against each individually. The extortionist owes restitution to the coerced party, and the coerced party has a right to retribution against the extortionist.
I honestly don't understand what you're trying to say. Could you rephrase that? Who is who?
Obviously neither of us can prove the other wrong, but it's incredibly cruel to charge a man who was coerced into breaking a window by a man holding a chainsaw to his genitals. Why not make the true coercer pay for everything? What do you gain by punishing the victim?
Ego: In both cases, the coerced party wishes to avoid harm. In the case of the murderer, he has the same intent as the extortionist, the death or injury of a third party. In the case of the taxpayer, he does not have the same intent as state agents, causing injury or death to third parties. The extortionist and murderer act in concert to achieve a goal. The taxpayer and state agent do not. The extortionist and murderer have an agreement to commit a crime. The taxpayer and state agent do not. I honestly don't understand what you're trying to say. Could you rephrase that? Who is who?
Sorry.
Case 1: Your standard threatening genitals with chainsaw unless you kill innocent third party. The person with the chainsaw is the extortionist. He wants the innocent third party to die. The person who is threatened also wants the third party to die, so he can avoid parting with his genitals. They both have the same goal in mind, the death of the innocent third party. In this case, the coerced party is also doing something that would ordinarily be a crime.
Case 2: State and Subject. The state collects its revenue by threatening the taxpayer with injury. The state also uses those funds to occasionally kill some innocent third parties. The taxpayer does not intend the death of of the innocent third party. The taxpayer is also not doing anything that would ordinarily be a crime (giving money to a criminal organization is not a crime).
Ego:Obviously neither of us can prove the other wrong, but it's incredibly cruel to charge a man who was coerced into breaking a window by a man holding a chainsaw to his genitals. Why not make the true coercer pay for everything? What do you gain by punishing the victim?
The proof is simple. Victims have a right to retribution because their aggressor cannot coherently argue against proportional punishment because they've already demonstrated with their action that they think it is an acceptable interpersonal norm.
Ego:Why not make the true coercer pay for everything? What do you gain by punishing the victim?
The examples you are inplicitly referencing in your question all have three parties: An aggressor (A), an aggressor/victim (B), and a victim (C).
What you are suggesting is that B be resolved of his crime toward C because of A's crime towards B. What I am suggesting is that B be held responsible for his crime toward C, and A be held responsible for his crimes toward B and C. This is because I think that any objective definition of a crime/aggression can't allow for discrimination on the basis of the present state of the criminal party. Also I think that the justification for retribution implies that B doesn't get off the hook.
Expect typos......!
You can skip to the bold text at the end of this post for my main point.Let's say that two evil men loved to kidnap and waterboard women until the women drowned. They the same brutal routine each time:
The first man tied the woman down, ensured that she couldn't escape, and poured water over her face. The scond man handed the first man buckets full of water and looked out for police. Once the woman had drowned, the first man would take away body while the second man would take away the buckets. After several dozen women had been tortured/killed this way, the two men finally were caught. Would you let the second man go free? What if you couldn't tell which of the men was actually the second man? The second man is perfectly analogous to knowingly and voluntarily funding a torturous Nazi regime.You also apply a double-standard when dealing with your Cases 1 and 2. You say in Case 2, the taxpayers don't really want the government to tax, set prices, kill innocent people, but funds it knowing that's exactly what the government does in order to avoid being killed. In Case 1, the example with the man who has a coercer hold a spinning chainsaw next to his genitals, you don't give that man the same benefit of the doubt. You say that he wants to commit a crime! No, he doesn't! He doesn't want a chainsaw sawing through his genitals, and, just like the taxpayers, he gives in to avoid punishment. What's the kicker, though? Your moral system would prosecute an individual in a crowd for ducking if there were a brick thrown at his/her head! Again, like I said in an earlier post, I can't prove anything to be cruel and ridiculous, but why would anyone subscribe to that system? As a side note, I absolutely love these kinds of discussions!
Ego:The second man is perfectly analogous to knowingly and voluntarily funding a torturous Nazi regime.
They're not analogous. The understanding between the criminals in this case is clear. The buckets of water will only be used to drown victims. The second person is participating in the crime. Also, looking out for the police in this case is an active obstruction of justice and also criminal by itself.
Ego:You also apply a double-standard when dealing with your Cases 1 and 2.
In case 1, the coerced party is personally commiting a murder. In case 2, they are not personally commiting a murder. That's the difference.
Ego:Your moral system would prosecute an individual in a crowd for ducking if there were a brick thrown at his/her head!
Don't see how. You're gonna have to explain that.
Ego:As a side note, I absolutely love these kinds of discussions!
Yes. They are interesting and force us to reflect.
Stephen Forde: Ego:The second man is perfectly analogous to knowingly and voluntarily funding a torturous Nazi regime. They're not analogous. The understanding between the criminals in this case is clear. The buckets of water will only be used to drown victims. The second person is participating in the crime. Also, looking out for the police in this case is an active obstruction of justice and also criminal by itself.
You could remove the "look-out" part and the analogy still stands. Just as the second man knows what the first man is doing, taxpayers know what the state is doing.
Ego:You also apply a double-standard when dealing with your Cases 1 and 2. In case 1, the coerced party is personally commiting a murder. In case 2, they are not personally commiting a murder. That's the difference.
We're going in circles, but that same logic can be applied to hiring a hitman, especially if that hitman is hired in creative ways.
Ego:Your moral system would prosecute an individual in a crowd for ducking if there were a brick thrown at his/her head! Don't see how. You're gonna have to explain that.
If you duck, you are taking an action that will result in someone else's rights being violated instead of yours. You've long been stating that such an action is immoral!
I should make this clear for any individuals entering this thread late: If someone is coerced (for example, being threatened by a spinning chainsaw held next to his/her genitals), any crimes the victim commits should be attributed to the original aggressor. Stephen Forde is arguing the opposite.
Ego: Ego:Your moral system would prosecute an individual in a crowd for ducking if there were a brick thrown at his/her head! Don't see how. You're gonna have to explain that. If you duck, you are taking an action that will result in someone else's rights being violated instead of yours. You've long been stating that such an action is immoral!
Is this just an act or do you really not see the difference between dodging a bullet and shooting a bullet?
If you want to explain your position, go ahead. But there is nothing more to be gained from continuing to refute your same several objections to mine.
There isn't a difference. In both cases, inaction results in harm to yourself, while action results in no harm to yourself but harm to someone else.
In both cases, you're making a (coerced) decision: should I take harm or should I take an action which results in someone else taking harm instead?
Ego: Ego:You also apply a double-standard when dealing with your Cases 1 and 2. In case 1, the coerced party is personally commiting a murder. In case 2, they are not personally commiting a murder. That's the difference. We're going in circles, but that same logic can be applied to hiring a hitman, especially if that hitman is hired in creative ways.
The same logic cannot be applied to hiring a hitman. If I were to employ someone to build me a house, I own the house just the same as if I build it myself. In this case his labour is a means for me to build a house. If he were to dispute that the house was mine, I would have to prove that we had a contract no matter how creatively I hired him. The hitman is a similar case. If he is hired and there exists an agreement (no matter how creatively this is arrived at), than the hitman's employer is culpable.
Given coercion, in no way can the taxpayer be considered to have a contract with state agents. They are not culpable for 'crimes of the state' unless they form personal agreements through favours or bribery.
This implies that when someone homesteads standing room, they homestead along with it a positive obligation on me to remain where I am if there is a hazard which will harm that person if I move. But there are no positive obligations only negative ones. In short, I have every right to duck. If the scenario were slightly different and I had only the options of deflecting the crick towards them or allowing the brick to impact me, I would be obligated to let it hit me.
Ego: There isn't a difference. In both cases, inaction results in harm to yourself, while action results in no harm to yourself but harm to someone else. In both cases, you're making a (coerced) decision: should I take harm or should I take an action which results in someone else taking harm instead?
If you only examine the situations in terms of harm resulting from the choices made, than the situations are analogous. But if you take property rights into consideration, they are not.
Consider the following scenario. A and B are wandering together in the desert and B is out of water. A has only enough water to sustain one of them until they reach the next oasis. If B robs A of his water, his choice results in A's death (case 3). If A voluntarily gives B his water, his choice results in his own death (case 4).
In both cases, the resulting harm is the same. If this is the only consideration in our theory of justice, we would have to say that either a crime was committed in both cases or in neither. In fact, many consequentialists think that the normal rules of law shouldn't apply in 'lifeboat' situations. But if we are considering rights (necessarily property rights), they were violated in case 1 but not in case 2.
Everyone has the right to harm themselves. No one has the right to harm anyone else (involunarily).
Stephen Forde: The same logic cannot be applied to hiring a hitman. If I were to employ someone to build me a house, I own the house just the same as if I build it myself. In this case his labour is a means for me to build a house. If he were to dispute that the house was mine, I would have to prove that we had a contract no matter how creatively I hired him. The hitman is a similar case. If he is hired and there exists an agreement (no matter how creatively this is arrived at), than the hitman's employer is culpable. Given coercion, in no way can the taxpayer be considered to have a contract with state agents. They are not culpable for 'crimes of the state' unless they form personal agreements through favours or bribery.
Imagine this scenario: I really dislike Bob. I dislike him so much that I want to kill him. I happen to be an active trader in prediction markets. I start a new contract that says Bob will not die in the next month. I put tons of money into this contract and bid up the price knowing that someone will short the contract, kill Bob, and make lots of money off of the deal. In this case there is no agreement between me and the hitman and I have never even communicated with him. Should I be prosecuted for the murder of Bob?
"I cannot prove, but am prepared to affirm, that if you take care of clarity in reasoning, most good causes will take care of themselves, while some bad ones are taken care of as a matter of course." -Anthony de Jasay
Juan:That's clever...
I'm obsessed with Intrade so I just couldn't resist pulling out the old "assassin market" scenario. Does anyone have a reasoned response to this?
Isn't that essentially putting a bounty on someone's head? Seems to be an overt act of aggression to me.
"He that struggles with us strengthens our nerves, and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper." Edmund Burke
maxpot46: Isn't that essentially putting a bounty on someone's head? Seems to be an overt act of aggression to me.
Did the people who predicted Saddam Husein's execution engage in overt aggression? How about the people who are currently trading on the death/capture of Osama bin Laden?
If the scenario were slightly different and I had only the options of deflecting the crick towards them or allowing the brick to impact me, I would be obligated to let it hit me.
If you're going to make that distinction, I'm speechless. There's no difference.
Ego:If you're going to make that distinction, I'm speechless. There's no difference.
How is there no difference? There is only no difference if we are considering a particular harm caused by a particular action only. If we are considering private property only, ducking would not be an invasion and deflecting would be.