I have been thinking about NAP for a while and have yet to understand all of its possible legal implications, and so, have yet to properly adopt it as something I can completely defend. I tend to devise real world scenarios in order to follow an assertion to all of it's logical implications. Here is one such scenario.
Suppose A, B, and C are actors oriented in the shape of an equilateral triangle, where A is at the top, B is on the right, and C is on the left, and all are enclosed in locked cages where they will surely die of dehydration.
Suppose each actor has a button which they can press to kill the actor to their left and simultaneously open all three cages.
Suppose all of them were forcibly placed in the cages by D.
What are the implications of NAP on who would be punished for the death of the one if someone chose to push the button?
My take on it is that whoever pushed the button is guilty of murdering the actor to his left. D is guilty of kidnapping, false imprisonment, and attempted murder against A, B, and C (although the first two crimes were in furtherance of the third crime).
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
I was really hoping people would just ignore this ridiculous question. It seems to me that the only person guilty of murder is D. Suppose there is a room with a hostage, and the door is booby trapped - opening the door kills everyone inside.
If the police open the door, are they guilty of murdering those inside? Or is it the person who planted the bomb?
What if the door isn't locked, and whoever inside reaches outside first sets off the bomb? If everyone stays inside, they will all die of starvation, but if someone can make it out the door first to safety, is he guilty of murder?
The only person definitely guilty of murder is whoever set up this trap.
This is also very similar to Rothbard's lifeboat situation. He believed that whoever reaches the boat first owns it, even if it is multiple people. This would mean that anyone who doesn't reach it in time will die. He also believed that if anyone assaulted someone in order to reach the boat first, then that person is guilty of murder.
This situation is assinine. I would not fault anyone for trying to live in such a twisted scenario. Try coming up with scenarios that actually resemble the real world.
Well, SAW-like fantasies aside, it is D (Jigsaw, right?) who is aggressing upon the unwilling participants (A, B, and C) by forcing them into his contraption. If someone dies, it is because he designed the thing to kill one or all of them.
gotlucky:I was really hoping people would just ignore this ridiculous question. It seems to me that the only person guilty of murder is D.
Maybe I like these kinds of questions. :P Sorry if I disappointed you though.
Thinking about it further, there could be a case that D was not only guilty of attempted murder against all three, but was also either an accessory or accomplice to any murder that actually occurred.
Also, I'm assuming that A, B, and C have all been informed of what pushing the button would do.
gotlucky:Suppose there is a room with a hostage, and the door is booby trapped - opening the door kills everyone inside. If the police open the door, are they guilty of murdering those inside? Or is it the person who planted the bomb? What if the door isn't locked, and whoever inside reaches outside first sets off the bomb? If everyone stays inside, they will all die of starvation, but if someone can make it out the door first to safety, is he guilty of murder? The only person definitely guilty of murder is whoever set up this trap.
I think the legal principle of joint principals could assist here. The police opening the door weren't in on the scheme to begin with, even though their opening of the door was the proximate cause of the deaths of the people inside. If they knew, or had reason to believe, beforehand that the door was booby-trapped, then opening the door anyway would certainly make them liable for murder IMHO. The person who planted the bomb would at least be an accessory to murder, if not an accomplice or joint principal.
Autolykos: Maybe I like these kinds of questions. :P Sorry if I disappointed you though.
I suppose if anyone were to answer this question, it's best that it's you. :)
Autolykos: Thinking about it further, there could be a case that D was not only guilty of attempted murder against all three, but was also either an accessory or accomplice to any murder that actually occurred. Also, I'm assuming that A, B, and C have all been informed of what pushing the button would do.
I think there is a definite case in this scenario.
Autolykos: I think the legal principle of joint principals could assist here. The police opening the door weren't in on the scheme to begin with, even though their opening of the door was the proximate cause of the deaths of the people inside. If they knew, or had reason to believe, beforehand that the door was booby-trapped, then opening the door anyway would certainly make them liable for murder IMHO. The person who planted the bomb would at least be an accessory to murder, if not an accomplice or joint principal.
Makes sense to me.
I am upset that I have so severely disappointed a stranger online. I'll do my best to force my curiosity in the subject to acquiesce to your preferences in the future.
Thanks to everyone who answered. I'm just trying to understand and learn like anyone else.
If you are serious about learning about libertarian theory, I would suggest not starting with outliers for moral situations. Here are two resources for you to learn the basics:
The Ethics of Liberty by Murray Rothbard
In it, chapter 20 focuses on the lifeboat situation, but I suggest reading the entire book first.
What Law Is by forum poster Clayton
I highly recommend reading these before starting in on lifeboat situations. You need a firm understanding of the basics before you start to tackle complex situations.
Yes, I've read those. Thanks.