Say for instance that a person's mother is old or had an illness and their son takes it upon themselves to look after their mother. The mother is completely reliant upon the child to feed, bathe her etc.
One day they get tired of looking after their mother and neglect to feed her. She starves to death. In a libertarian society, could this person be prosecuted? They haven't done anything wrong (i.e. broken any contracts) as everything in the arrangement was purely voluntary, they simply did not feed their mother. Because no coercion exists, they could not have been forced to feed their mother.
So what would the response be? Clearly most people would agree they have committed a crime and done something wrong morally but could they be prosecuted?
Because no coercion exists, they could not have been forced to feed their mother.
Seems like you've already got it!
Clearly most people would agree they have committed a crime
Clearly most people thought Obama should have been president in '08 as well. What "most people think" is irrelevant, as they have no full concept of the NAP.
As to the question: No one has a natural entitlement to any of anyone's time or property. The mother has no more right to her son's property than she does to anyone else's stuff. Where does it say that children must care for their parents? I do not like making too many analogies to nature, but do notice that in nature the purpose of offspring is to continue the species, not to care for someone in their old age. Indeed, animals die before their offspring are old enough to care for them. So in a very literal sense, this does not exist even in nature.
Now, this scenario is distasteful, how do we prevent it?
1) The lady could sign a contract with her son to either have him care for her or give her some percent of his wages
2) Society (as individuals) may decide that some people are sick in their old age and should be cared for. Thus, society decides to establish a voluntarily-contributed pool of money that is given to old people in the community.
3) She could save during her life so as to not be penniless at the end of her life. If she saves $3000 per year for 40 years, completely possible, she should have an alright footing for retirement.
4) Remember than in AnCap tons of stuff would be cheaper, there wouldn't be taxes (and though you have to pay for your own services, this will be less than the current system).
could they be prosecuted?
Yes, they could.
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
Seeing as the only person in the entire world who gave a damn about this old sick woman is her son and he left her to starve, I can not imagine who would care to prosecute her son.
Charles, Charles, Charles. You underestimate people's power to feel empathy after the point at which they could have helped but simply stood looking on. When a homeless guy gets killed there's a big fuss and people are angry and the courts prosecute the guilty. But before he dies, people pass him by without making eye contact.
If a homeless person would not be able to afford protection, and if someone killed that homeless person, would they be able to be prosecuted? Where is the incentive for a system based on profit to act if there is no money to be made?
Is that not a failure of the market?
The response is that someone sees this happen, and cries their little eyes out, and wants to fix the problem. But because there is no nanny state to run to, they actually have to do something themselves, and they start a charity to take care of old people. They go door to door asking for donations. They get a surprising amount of donations. People say things like "I love what you are doing for our seniors! I wish I had the time to volunteer, but there are so many things I get paid to do, its easier for me to just donate money to a bleeding heart like you." eventually after feeding a bunch of old people until they die, the bleeding heart realizes that death is inevitable and changes their charitable focus to juvenile disability.
The important thing to consider is personal responsibility. If you have a problem with the prospect of old people dying of starvation, do something about it. It is highly authoritarian to cling to the state for everything that displeases you.
No, it is a failure of the homeless person. Security is a scarce resource, not a right. The market allocates scarce resources efficiently. In all reality, there is no profit in murdering the homeless anyway and law enforcement cannot act until the murder has happened, so I dont see what you are driving at.
People have human rights regardless of whether they own real estate or not. However it is a fact that the state dehumanizes men and women for their poverty, and occupies enormous amounts of land, and disallows squatting on their property. So the existence and maltreatment of the property-less class in an authoritarian society doesnt help the statist argument.
Where is the incentive for a system based on profit to act if there is no money to be made? Is that not a failure of the market?
Where is the incentive for a system based on profit to act if there is no money to be made?
It's a failure of people to realize that they should be giving money to prevent this. It's a failure of the state mentality: "Person X is being screwed, we need a government agency to fix it!" No, you need to teach people that this cause is worth giving money to. You don't need someone else to fix it. YOU need to fix it.
Is security a scarce resource though? Under a state, there is a much smaller chance of that crime occurring than if there wasn't a blanket security for everyone. A psychopath would kill the homeless person because they know that he doesn't have protection and no one would prosecute him. If there were a state, he'd think that he may be caught and that would deter him.
The fact that there is a market for security will mean that the number of crimes would increase considerably and rather unnecessarily.
You also claim that security is not a right yet argue that the non-aggression principle and right to one's self are the fundamental principles of any society. Do these two things not contradict one another?
Wheylous, perhaps the homeless person is homeless not on purpose. You can't just assume that they are a bum voluntarily because under the market there is no safety net. Think about it, you would have agencies popping up which sell serial killers information as to who has cancelled their private protection and these serial killers would go around murdering them. If there is demand for it, the market will provide it right?
When you say "the son takes it upon himself to care for her" is where a responsibility is accepted, written contract or not. He's in a sole-care scenario and has a responsibility for her life at that point, and if she dies to negligence without him even attempting to pass her on to others or get help then he should be prosecuted for neglect unto death.
If this weren't the case, there would be a multitude of situation where effectively murder would be rationalized.
For instance, every newborn is in the exact same situation as the mother here. Do we want to say it is ethical for a mother to stop feeding her child unto death? No, that's murder. And it's not a "failure of the child" as someone said about the grandmother. Both are helpless.
Clearly there's a bridge of responsibility between acceptance of care and non-acceptance. For a child, the mother of the child is always responsible at birth (or even before :P ) until she passes on that care to another willing party. That responsibility is forced upon her by nature.
As for the mother, once the son shows up and starts caring for her as the sole-provider, he's now responsible. As for the homeless guy, care could be given in part or in full. You're simply responsible not to make his situation worse on purpose.
If this weren't so, you'd end up with ethical conclusions that say 'it's not the fault of the guy who threw the homeless guy in the freezing water that he died, it's his fault for not swimming,' etc.
And if you take the homeless guy into an environment where no one else has access to him, where only you can care for him, and you neglect him unto death, then you've murdered him as surely as if you threw him in the icy river where no one else could rescue him. It's two aspects of the same thing, and the same thing with the mother.
As for the NAP, let's talk about it. Would it be an aggression to lock someone in a room until they starve to death? Yes. This is effectively what's happened to the mother whose son stops feeding her while also secluding her from any help.
Now if the son can't even feed himself, that's another matter.
""Is security a scarce resource though? Under a state, there is a much smaller chance of that crime occurring than if there wasn't a blanket security for everyone.""
I guess you must not live where I live. The United States Supreme Court ruled that police do not have a duty to protect you.
"" A psychopath would kill the homeless person because they know that he doesn't have protection and no one would prosecute him. If there were a state, he'd think that he may be caught and that would deter him.""
As opposed to the current system where the government investigates murders of homeless people? What are you arguing in favor of? Do you think that any municipality devotes resources to this underclass? I bet you didnt know that there are convicted triple murderers walking the streets legally today.
""The fact that there is a market for security will mean that the number of crimes would increase considerably and rather unnecessarily.""
According to you. Lets see some arguments. As it stands this is an article of faith.
""You also claim that security is not a right yet argue that the non-aggression principle and right to one's self are the fundamental principles of any society. Do these two things not contradict one another?""
They are logically compatible. Security is a service, provided by labor and capital. If you provide your own labor and capital, meaning you own firearms and are prepared to use them, that is self-defense. If someone else does it, that is security. So no, you dont have a right to a personal bodyguard, or even a fraction of one. You do not have an inherent right to a police force on your behalf, and the United States Supreme Court will back me up on that. However you have the right to life, the right to liberty, and to remain secure in your person and your property. Violence is only appropriate in defense of rights. So forcing people to cough up money so you can raise a defense force is simple thuggery.
Is security a scarce resource though?
You mean "Is people's time and people's guns devoted to them protecting me a scarce resource?"
Yes, it is.
Under a state, there is a much smaller chance of that crime occurring than if there wasn't a blanket security for everyone.
I fail to see how this is true.
I once more fail to see this.
You also claim that security is not a right yet argue that the non-aggression principle and right to one's self are the fundamental principles of any society.
Food is not a right either. But without food you can't survive. Shelter is not a right. But good luck not having shelter. Healthcare is not a right. But without healthcare the incidence of death would be much higher.
Why do we look at a necessary good and think "oh boy, if we don't have it we'll die. Let's take up guns and take things from people so that we may have what we want"? Why not instead say "oh boy, if we don't have this we'll die. Let's create a fund to which we voluntarily give money so that our society doesn't fall prone to these things"?
under the market there is no safety net
This is also not completely true. There is no safety net based on coercion, that is true. But you have churches. You have charity. You have conscientious people. And maybe most importantly, you have all of those abandoned houses.
Moving to a free market doesn't mean people will suddenly stop caring about poverty and old age. It simply means that they must channel their care through non-violence.
If there is demand for it, the market will provide it right?
And 1) no one will trade with these agencies, ever 2) Just because you don't pay for police doesn't mean you don't get police. It seems like you think police protection is essential. Thus, would you refuse the protection to your neighbor if he can't pay for it? I'd like to think that all of these humanists who say "but those without protection will die!" will join an organization which provides protection not only to the paying members of society, but also to those who can't pay.
Consider this:
For something to be a law in a democracy, you need 51% support. If you move to a free market, you still have this 51% desire for security. Hence, you would still have those 51% of people set up a police system with some form of voluntary taxation. Problem solved.
And do note that over 85% of people likely want a police system. Not just 51. I dare say over 95%. Maybe over 98%.
has a responsibility for her life at that point
Whose fault is it that there was no written contract?
For instance, every newborn is in the exact same situation as the mother here
Straw man. The newborn did not have a lifetime to plan for being born. The old mother had a lifetime to plan her retirement. Also note that since she is a mother, she at one point had a husband, who likely also contributed to the retirement savings, and now that he is gone, there is even more money.
That responsibility is forced upon her by nature.
Supposing that this is true, you can clearly see that in nature there is no care in old age. Animals die before their offspring can take care of them. This tight family unit is a human-invented thing. Note that this, furthermore, has only become a problem of late, as people didn't live to be 80 years old 100 years ago. Life expectancy was about 50. Truly, it's society's fault for this needed care.
To make it absolutely clear, a reductio ad absurdum:
Technology makes it possible for a person to live until they are 150 years old, but in the state that people are currently when they are 90. Does this mean the son now has a responsibility essentially forever? Does the mother suddenly have the entitlement to this extra lifespan service?
'it's not the fault of the guy who threw the homeless guy in the freezing water that he died, it's his fault for not swimming,' etc.
Again, straw man. Inaction is completely different from action. Actively hurting someone is illegal. Standing around and spectating while a man is getting his fingers cut off is perfectly legal (while not humane).
And if you take the homeless guy into an environment where no one else has access to him,
Also called kidnapping.
Would it be an aggression to lock someone in a room until they starve to death? Yes.
Anenome, do how do you suggest you enforce your old-mother-care-policy? Post guards in front of the house while the son takes care of his mom for a state-mandated 1 hour per day? Or impose a tax on him?
Obviously the question is wrong in the start. The only question that makes sense is should they be prosecuted, not "could" they be. Also it is something that has been long covered, it is the same scenario as that of parents who neglected to feed their child. They may do so, but only after announcing to the world that they will no longer care for their child thus "unhomesteading" it and giving someone else the chance to come and get the child and feed it themselves.
Or better put, seeing that nobody in the world cared enough for this woman enough to feed her, no one has the right to point the finger at anyone else. Now it is another matter, if there were people who would have been willing to feed her, but did not know and could not have known about her predicament because the son never informed the public he was going to go against his culture and leave his mother to starve.
The Bomb19:and if someone killed that homeless person, would they be able to be prosecuted? Where is the incentive for a system based on profit to act if there is no money to be made? Is that not a failure of the market?
Secondly, the incentives exist. There is money to be made by keeping the streets healthy and safe -- that includes providing security to pretect people from murderers. If the land owner wants repeated business, he would probably incorporate public safety on his streets as part of his business plan.
Third, you are changing your hypothetical mid-thread for a reason. I wonder why. You are struggling to find something, possibly a golden hammer to smash libertarian philosophy, perhaps? You can never do it unless you admit that you believe in taxation to fund your charity while we do not. At some point you are going to have to admit that the old sick woman should not have been responsible for herself, that many years ago she should not have bought her own life/health/disability/security insurance because the police would discourage her son from letting her die.
I laugh at these questions. I believe a true free market or anti-state society would manifest itself with a lot less infrastructure making it very difficult for people to hide their actions. I guess you could call me a pseudo-primitivist in a sense. I really think that the demise of the state will come with a dependence on family and friends. In other words, the hypothetical situations posited in this thread -- i.e., old sick woman left to die and helpless homeless man getting murdered -- would never transpire in AnCapistan without somebody witnessing them.
You can never do it unless you admit that you believe in taxation to fund your charity while we do not.
Anenome believes in a voluntarily-funded state :P