Always good for a laugh LS.
This is off topic, but seeing as this thread isn't gonna take off anyway, you heard this Greg Morton song "Obama Man"?'
Who can take tommorrow
spend it all today?
Who can take your income
and tax it all away?
Obama man...
Obama man can
Stephen Forde: What would it take for there to be an indication that killing or an other terms are agreed upon? What would constitute a valid agreement?
What would it take for there to be an indication that killing or an other terms are agreed upon? What would constitute a valid agreement?
Consent either exists or it doesn't. Those things are just evidence reflecting that reality.
Stephen Forde:And what's your opinion on voluntary slavery? Can someone contract themselves into slavery?
A person can sign a slave contract, sure. But its not binding. As long as the person continues to wish to be a slave then they will be one, but if the slave should decide to leave the relationship the contract can't keep them in it.
Peace
Juan:Heh. But it was a serious question. Stephen seems to be interested in justifying the application of the death sentence on the spot and by people who are both party and judge. Frankly, it can't get any more...unjustifiable IMO. Since I find the position very unreasonable I wondered why he personally holds it.
I think that strictly adhering to the 'proportionality' principle for all cases puts some ppl in an unfair legal straight jacket. This became apparent as I read through the compensation ratio blog post. Another older thought that I had was that use of the state for justice is often supraproportional, so victims often have to choose between letting something go or becoming a criminal by using the justice system.
It would be odd if the libertarian framework didn't allow anyone to extricate themselves. Then I watched Walter Block's video on privatising roads. And it became apparent. The owner can just set the conditions for entry or use of his property. Even extreme conditions. Why not illustrate with a classic scenario?
Juan:And the answer "I work in retail" would have made some sense...had it been true.
I actually do work in retail. And currently laws seem to protect criminals more than real people. What I would like to see is every owner of property to be allowed to lay down the law for his own property, no matter how unreasonable people like you (aspiring social engineers?) may find it.
, no matter how unreasonable people like you (aspiring social engineers?) may find it.
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."
JonBostwick:Consent either exists or it doesn't. Those things are just evidence reflecting that reality.
Well, a person may make an agreement and then change their mind later. Does this mean that it no longer applies because they no longer consent? And what would you consider evidence of consent: entry (obviously not), signature, manual biometric thumbscan? At what point would you say that a customer has agreed to certain conditions?
JonBostwick:A person can sign a slave contract, sure. But its not binding. As long as the person continues to wish to be a slave then they will be one, but if the slave should decide to leave the relationship the contract can't keep them in it.
This part of Rothbard (and Kinsella too) always seemed a little odd. These are two guys who think it is legitmate to enslave for capital crimes. But if a person wants to be bound without committing some capital crime, why can't they be? Because the human body is inalienable from the human will? That seems doubtable at best. Anyway, why shouldn't a person be allowed to enter into agreement were they give up certain rights to their person?
Going back to murder park, what if a person is already inside and changes their mind, even though he agreed to be in for a certain amount of time? If someone shoots him now (at a time that he is no longer consenting) is it murder?
Stephen Forde:Always good for a laugh LS.
I try.
That song is brilliant!
Juan:OTOH I think you are some sort of right wing nutcase. How about it ?
Is that what you really think? Really? Let's face it. You've never met me. What do you have to go on?
To anybody else who wants to know why Juan raised this question, it's because it wasn't resolved to his satisfaction in this thread. You will also notice a large number of 'right wing nutcases' there who didn't agree with him on this occasion either.
Stephen Forde:Is that what you really think ? Really? Let's face it. You've never met me. What do you have to go on ?
To anybody else who wants to know why Juan raised this question, it's because it wasn't resolved to his satisfaction in this thread.
Juan:What question wasn't resolved to my satisfaction ?
Whether or not lethal force is acceptable.
Juan:You seem to be advocating exactly what a right wing extremist would advocate.
Voluntary law?
@ JB
Hey, if a high risk debtor doesn't want to repay his credit card and the creditor forces him to, has the debtor given his consent? There's an easy way to tell. Ask him if he consents?
Another thing, how much can a person agree to as part of a penalty clause in an agreement? Can someone transfer rights to their body? Is organ donation invalid?
If a driver drives on a private highway, for example the Gardiner Expressway in Toronto, and a camera records their liscense plate, and they get a bill in the mail, do they have to pay it? I mean they didn't consent right?
K,Juan.
You're right, I'm totally nuts. Now do you have anything meaningful to add to the discussion? Maybe some points about contract theory, enforceability, that sort of thing?
I do. This whole topic should have ended in the beginning, when I pointed out that implied consent doesn't exist. A contract is not a sign, but a 2 way exchange of or agreement to transfer title.
To that extent, entering the premises against the arbitrary terms of a useless sign can only be considered trespassing. The punishment can only be trespassing. If, further, gum is stolen, then trespassing and theft -- if it can be . Not more.
This whole scenario would never exist, because people are smarter than this. If it did arise, the results would be widely known to businessmen and shopkeepers looking to earn a profit would use their brains. Profitable businessmen are notorious for being creative, witty, and good with the public. Not for creating arbitrary rules and situations which discourage business.
Stephen Forde: Juan: What question wasn't resolved to my satisfaction ? Whether or not lethal force is acceptable.
Juan: What question wasn't resolved to my satisfaction ?
Stephen Forde: Juan: You seem to be advocating exactly what a right wing extremist would advocate. Voluntary law?
Juan: You seem to be advocating exactly what a right wing extremist would advocate.
Stephen Forde: @ JB Hey, if a high risk debtor doesn't want to repay his credit card and the creditor forces him to, has the debtor given his consent? There's an easy way to tell. Ask him if he consents?
Thats different. You gone from discussing an inalienable property, self ownership, to an alienable property, money.
Once a person has transferred away title to property, its no longer his. The contract serves as evidence of that transfer of title. Self ownership is different because it can not be transferred away; do not confuse this with: not allowed to be transferred away. Self ownership is an inescapable part of the human condition.
The debtor has to return the money because its not his, thus he does not have the legal right to refuse.
Stephen Forde:Another thing, how much can a person agree to as part of a penalty clause in an agreement? Can someone transfer rights to their body? Is organ donation invalid?
As much as they want.
Stephen Forde:If a driver drives on a private highway, for example the Gardiner Expressway in Toronto, and a camera records their liscense plate, and they get a bill in the mail, do they have to pay it? I mean they didn't consent right?
If the bill is proportional to the trespass.
hashem: I do. This whole topic should have ended in the beginning, when I pointed out that implied consent doesn't exist. A contract is not a sign, but a 2 way exchange of or agreement to transfer title. To that extent, entering the premises against the arbitrary terms of a useless sign can only be considered trespassing. The punishment can only be trespassing. If, further, gum is stolen, then trespassing and theft -- if it can be . Not more. This whole scenario would never exist, because people are smarter than this. If it did arise, the results would be widely known to businessmen and shopkeepers looking to earn a profit would use their brains. Profitable businessmen are notorious for being creative, witty, and good with the public. Not for creating arbitrary rules and situations which discourage business.
Your right there is no implied consent...because none is required. You are the violator if you are stealing from someone. We don' t need a contract to cover that issue. The only question that remains, which you have not answered, is do you have the right to use violence to defend your property?
Maxliberty:Your right there is no implied consent...because none is required.
I'm right because by the very nature of consent, it cannot merely be implied. "Implied" consent is a tactic of the state to convict innocent people. True consent must be given and and received (a two way process), not merely perceived (a one way imagined "thought").
Maxliberty:You are the violator if you are stealing from someone. We don' t need a contract to cover that issue. The only question that remains, which you have not answered, is do you have the right to use violence to defend your property?
A reasonable proposition indeed. I admit, if you can be considered to rightly own property in any meaningful sense, then it follows that you have the right to defend that property, with aggression to the extent that your rights have been aggressed upon. So you must concede, also then, that any extra (non-defensive) aggression is purely aggressive and strictly non-defensive by the very meaning of the terms. Thus, killing a bubblegum thief is an act of aggression, not defense.
Further, murder of a thief cannot be considered just punishment because of its grossly unproportional nature -- that is, punishment is only just so long as its purpose is to obtain reimbursement and to deprive the criminal of his rights to the extent that he deprived yours.
hashem:Further, murder of a thief cannot be considered just punishment because of its grossly unproportional nature -- that is, punishment is only just so long as its purpose is to obtain reimbursement and to deprive the criminal of his rights to the extent that he deprived yours.
How does the relate to armed robbery then? As a contrast, of course...
It sounds like the ocean, smells like fresh mountain air, and tastes like the union of peanut butter and chocolate. ~Liberty Student
Stephen Forde: K,Juan. You're right, I'm totally nuts. Now do you have anything meaningful to add to the discussion? Maybe some points about contract theory, enforceability, that sort of thing?
Shoot the fuckin' wetback.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Harry Felker:How does the relate to armed robbery then? As a contrast, of course...
Note that your question takes us full cycle, back to the very beginning. What I mean is, it is the question Rothbard asked which led him to describe the bubble gum thief scenario.
"Violent defense then must be confined to violent invasion -- either actually, implicitly, or by direct and overt threat. But given this principle, how far does the right of violent defense go? For one thing, it would clearly be grotesque and criminally invasive to shoot a man across the street because his angry look seemed to you to portend an invasion. The danger must be immediate and overt, we might say, "clear and present -- a criterion that properly applies not to restrictions on freedom of speech (never permissible, if we regard such freedom as a subset of the rights of person and property) but to the right to take coercive action against a supposedly imminent invader."
Armed robbery is a tricky term anyways. I tend to assume it is another shady tactic of the state. Consider:
What is the (potential) robber armed with? A towel? A chain? A pencil? A knife? A water gun? A 9mm?
Is the (potential) robber threatening your life directly and immediately? Is the threat realistic? I.E. is a 5 year old kid threatening to strangle you to death right now with his shoelace if the bubblegum is not forthcoming? Or is he just threatening to beat your toe with a hammer? Does he even have a hammer?
Consider also that in a free market, crime and the incentives to commit crime will naturally be lower, and the protections against it will be more effective and common.
Juan:No, you're advocating the death penalty for petty thieves, not 'voluntary' law.
He is arguing for something similar to castle law. In other words, your property is your kingdom, and your laws are the law.
Juan:Well, your system is very 'efficient', I'd grant that.
If someone chose to have that system, I fully support them. I doubt he will have a lot of theft. But there will be further repercussions. People who disagree with his law might refuse to purchase goods from his store? I can think of a dozen scenarios of the top of my head which will persuade people from choosing 'harsh' or confusing laws (kinda like the kind we have now?).
Property rights, properly concieved, does not grant owners a "right to murder" by simply appealing to the fact that someone is on the property and nothing more, and it is misleading or confused to conflate genuine acts of self-defense with the maximalist position that Rothbard described. It is further a false dillema to imply that our only choices are to either embrace the maximalist position or be absolute pacifists. The shopkeeper who shoots the child is a murderer by common sense justice.
Why can't someone voluntarily enter into servitude? The contract should be upheld if the law that said contractee subscribes to (his DRO) allows for it. Hopefully the contractee will have had the sense to put in an escape clause. If allowed by his DRO, it is a completely legally binding document and should be able to be enforced. It all depends on the DRO that the individual is subscribed to.
Brainpolice:The shopkeeper who shoots the child is a murderer by common sense justice.
What is common sense justice? It sounds like the collectives feelings to me. That is definitely not something I want to be subject to.
Brainpolice:does not grant owners a "right to murder"
Of course not. It gives them the right to defend their property in accordance with their laws. Nothing more, nothing less. Who are you to say otherwise? I for one would feel much safer knowing that the written law of which I have agreed to, is the law- and that some collective can't change it on their whim.
Juan:Which is not libertarianism.
Explain please.
The contract should be upheld if the law that said contractee subscribes to (his DRO) allows for it.
Pablo: Explain please.
Pablo:Why can't someone voluntarily enter into servitude?
People can do anything voluntary which they agree to. But a slave contract cannot be binding to the extent that it is merely a promise. In fact, it cannot even be binding to the extent that it transfers title of one's person, because the will is part of the person, and the will is "unalienable". Thus, the person is unalienable.
If the contract transfers title to anything else, then the would-be slave will be in debt that much should he bail on the contract. But he can always opt out of a basic slave contract, i.e. "I will be your slave for life. Signed, Tricksy"
Stephen Forde: Anyway, why shouldn't a person be allowed to enter into agreement were they give up certain rights to their person?
Anyway, why shouldn't a person be allowed to enter into agreement were they give up certain rights to their person?
There will be no universally applicable law that does not require violence- except for voluntary contractual law. This is the reason scenarios like these need to be left up to each individual and the DRO of their choosing.
Stephen Forde:Going back to murder park, what if a person is already inside and changes their mind, even though he agreed to be in for a certain amount of time? If someone shoots him now (at a time that he is no longer consenting) is it murder?
It all depends on what their DRO, and the contract they signed stipulates.
Pablo:This is the reason scenarios like these need to be left up to each individual and the DRO of their choosing.
I totally agree dude. If everyone just had really good DRO, there would be a lot more peace. Far out.
Juan:He can stop being 'subjected' to DRO law at any time..
Anyone -can- do anything he or she would like. Repercussions are what I am concerned with. Who would recontract with said individual?
I -can- run my credit cards to their limits, then refuse to pay them. Who will lend me money after? If my contract with those credit cards stipulated that they could take any collateral which I put forth, my refusal to accept the contract does not change the repercussion that I will lose that collateral.
Juan:DROs are not really governments/laws
They are very similar. The only difference being in that they are not necessarily land based, and they are entirely contractual in nature.
Juan:Owning a plot of land doesn't mean you get to re-write natural law
Natural law is an involuntary set of arbitrary bs enforced by someone who blatantly disobeys it. Why not re-write it? The only 'natural law' of which I subscribe is that a voluntary contract be upheld over an involuntary one.
Juan:You might have a legitimate title to the land but you don't have any title to the people who stand on your land.
Anyone who violates property (ie, nature in which labor has been applied) can, and should be subject to the owner of said properties law. If you don't like the law of the land, you don't need to go there.
Pablo: Juan:Owning a plot of land doesn't mean you get to re-write natural law Natural law is an involuntary set of arbitrary bs enforced by someone who blatantly disobeys it. Why not re-write it? The only 'natural law' of which I subscribe is that a voluntary contract be upheld over an involuntary one. Juan:You might have a legitimate title to the land but you don't have any title to the people who stand on your land. Anyone who violates property (ie, nature in which labor has been applied) can, and should be subject to the owner of said properties law. If you don't like the law of the land, you don't need to go there.
From what do you derive the right to own land, if you reject natural law? What constitutes a violation of property if not an invasion of a right which itself is derived from natural law?
How can natural law possibly be arbitrary? What a joke.
Pablo:Anyone -can- do anything he or she would like.
Who would recontract with said individual?
I -can- run my credit cards to their limits, then refuse to pay them.
Pablo: Juan: DROs are not really governments/laws They are very similar.
Juan: DROs are not really governments/laws
Pablo:Natural law is an involuntary set of arbitrary bs enforced by someone who blatantly disobeys it.
hashem:it cannot even be binding to the extent that it transfers title of one's person, because the will is part of the person, and the will is "unalienable"
If one has VOLUNTARILY entered into conscription, you are arguing that this transaction is against their will?
Let me try to understand what you are saying.. Since ones will is inextricably linked to their body, they can not trade their body. Since trading their body would necessitate a transfer of their will, which physically must stay with the body. Good so far?
What about granting someone power of attorney? Is that not granting another person power to make decisions for you?
The theory is a great response against involuntary slavery, but makes absolutely no sense against voluntary servitude. If I've misconstrued it, please correct me.
hashem:I totally agree dude. If everyone just had really good DRO, there would be a lot more peace. Far out.
I don't understand how you made that into sarcasm. If everyone were able to voluntarily choose their law, there would be a lot less violence, and a lot more peace. Can you not resort to childish sarcasm, and actually refute why you believe it is false?
Juan:Here's the thing : Forde is a customer of Trigger-Happy inc. and the alleged thief is a customer of LibertarianLaw inc. It turns out that LibertarianLaw inc. does not recognize such a thing as summary executions. So what's next ?
If Trigger-Happy inc. granted authority for 'summary executions', and the thief was in violation of Forde's property, then LibertarianLaw inc. would have little to no ground to stand on in a case. If Trigger-Happy inc. did NOT allow for it, then LibertarianLaw inc. could bring about a dispute.
Pablo:If one has VOLUNTARILY entered into conscription, you are arguing that this transaction is against their will?
Wrong. It is precisely a positive choice, an act of the will.
Pablo:Since ones will is inextricably linked to their body, they can not trade their body.
Wrong again. They can trade the labor of their body presently, but cannot guarantee it in the future for the will can change. They can even enter into a voluntary slave contract and continue to abide its terms; but they cannot guarantee that they won't change their mind some day. A slave contract (one which transfers title of the person himself) is the only title transfer which cannot be binding.
You haven't read The Ethics of Liberty, have you?